NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS

Analysis Report September 1990

Undergraduate

Financial Aid Awards

A Report of the 1987

National Postsecondary

Student Aid Study

Peter StOwe

Postsecondary Education Statistics Division

Data Series:

SP-NPSAS-86187-5

U.S. Department of Education

Office of Educational Research and Improvement NCES 90-332
U.S. Department of Education

Lauro F, Cavazos

Secreta~

Office of Educational Research and Improvement

Christopher T. Cross

Assistant Secretary

National Center for Education Statistics

Emerson J. Elliott

Acting Commissioner

Information Services

Sharon K. Horn

Director

National Center for Education Statistics

“The purpose of the Center shall be to collect, and analyze,

and disseminate statistics and other data related to

education in the United States and in other

nations.”- Section 406(b) of the General Education

Provisions Act, as amended (20 U.S.C. 1221 e-1).

September 1990
I:$

Foreword

Student financial aid has grown substantially in the last 25 years. As a result,

policymakers at the Federal, State, and institution levels have needed information on the

distribution of student financial aid to answer a number of questions. In the past, data

on financial aid have been collected by groups interested in the distribution of aid

amounts to specific student populations, but, with only one exception, no comprehensive

data have been collected on a nationally representative sample of all postsecondary

students. As a result, many issues could not be addressed. For example, while the

number of undergraduates who received a Pelt award in an academic year was known

as well as the number who received a Guaranteed Student Loan, rarely did anyone know

how many received both of these awards. To meet this and other information needs, the

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) in the Office of Educational Research and

Improvement (OERI), with assistance from other governmental components, launched a

comprehensive study on student financial aid: The 1987 National Postsecondary Student

Aid Study (NPSAS).

This report is one in a series of reports based on NPSAS. The primary purpose of

this one is to provide information to policymakers and interested parties on how different

sources and types of student financial aid are combined to produce a student aid award

or package. For example, the report discusses the proportion of students who received

both a Pen grant and a Guaranteed Student Loan. The wealth of the NPSAS data base

provides an analyst with a large variety of approaches to examine student aid awards.

This report presents three: First, aid awards are examined by the source of aid; second,

by the type of aid; and, third, by a combination of sources and types. We hope this

report will stimulate other to explore alternative approaches to analyzing student aid

awards using the wealth of NPSAS data.

Samuel S. Peng

Director

Postsecondary Education

Statistics Division

Martin Frankel

Chief

Special Surveys and

Analysis Branch

. . .

Ill
Acknowledgments

The author is in debt to Lee Eiden and Roz Korb of the National Center for Education

Statistics (NCES) for their contributions to the organization of this report. The author is

also very appreciative of the numerous suggestions received on early drafts from Martin

Frankel and Linda Zimbler. Many helpful comments on later versions of the report were

made by a number of reviewers, including David Bergeron of the Office of Postsecondary

Education of the U.S. Department of Education, Timothy Christensen of the National

Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators, and MacKnight Black, Charles

Cowan, Bill Fowler, Sam Peng, and Gayle Rogers of NCES. A special thanks is due to

Sam Barbett for his help in explaining how the derived aid variables, used in this report,

were coded, making sure that the variables were appropriately used, and providing an

analysis file.

A note of appreciation should be expressed to Sandra Garcia and Gerald Malitz for

their contributions as project monitors to the development and production of the NPSAS.

Carl Knapp of the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators assisted

in providing literature on student financial aid packaging. Sharon Nelson provided

assistance in the typing of this report and Mark Travaglini lent his careful and thoughtful

pen to the manuscript in crafting a more readable, intelligible version of the report.

iv
Highlights

Some of the more interesting results of this report are presented below. In this report,

aid packages (which consist of one or more aid awards) are described three different

ways: by source, by type, and by a combination of sources and types. The results listed

below are similarly organized. In examining these results two cautionary notes are

necessary. First, all of the estimates cited are subject to sampling variability. Second,

estimates of the number of students who received aid and the distribution of aided

students among different types of postsecondary institutions are based on postsecondary

enrollment in the fall of 1986 and not that for the entire 198&87 schml year. As a result,

some estimates in this report may differ substantially from numbers in Federal financial

aid program reports, which represent data for the full academic year. Comparisons

between these two data sources should take note of these differences.’

Aided undergraduates

o Slightly less than half (49 percent) of all undergraduates received some form of

student financial aid.

o Students with low family incomes, who attended high cost institutions, were more

likely to be aided than those with high family incomes who attended low cost

institutions.

o Students who attended private, for-profit institutions were more likely to be aided

than those who attended a private, not-for-profit institutions, who, in turn were more

likely to be aided than those who attended public institutions.

Sources of student financial aid

The

o

0

Federal Government:

The Federal Government was the largest supplier of student financial aid to

undergraduates enrolled in postsecondary institutions in the fall of the 1986-87

academic year. Of all the student financial aid supplied to these undergraduates,

the Federal Government supplied 62 percent.

Seventy-one percent of aided undergraduates received some

percent received aid awards consis~ng solely of Federal aid.

Federal aid and 46

1

‘ A detailed discussion of the difference between the NPSAS data base and other data bases is

found on pp. 119-137 of the report on Undergraduate Financing of Postsecondary Education, May 1988.

v
o Similarly, aided undergraduates whoattended private, for-profit institutions were

more likely than those who attended public or private, not-for-profit institutions to

receive Federal aid, only, awards.

Postsecondary institutions:

o Postsecondary institutions were the second largest suppliers of student financial

aid. Of all the aid awarded to undergraduates enrolled in the fall of 1986,

postsecondary institutions supplied 21 percent.

o Aided undergraduates who attended public or private, not-for-profit institutions

were more likely to receive institutional aid than those who attended private, forprofit institutions.

Types of student financial aid

Grant aid:

o Among the aid received by undergraduates enrolled in the fall of 1986, slightly less

than 60 percent was in the form of grant aid.

o Among aided undergraduates, 83 percent received grants and slightly more than

one-half received grants, only.

o Aided undergraduates who attended public institutions were more likely to receive

grant awards, only, than those who attended private institutions.

Loan aid:

o Aided undergraduates who were loan recipients were more likely to receive some

other type of aid in addition to loans than to rely completely on a loan to help

finance their undergraduate expenses.

o Among aided undergraduates, a larger proportion of borrowers was found among

those in higher than in lower income brackets.

o Aided undergraduates who attended private, for-profit institutions were more likely

to receive loans than those who attended public or private, not-for-profit

institutions.

vi
Sources and types of student financial aid

o

0

0

0

0

0

Thirty-six percent of aided undergraduates received Pen grants in their aid awards.

Five percent of all aided undergraduates received Pen grants, alone, for an average

award of $1,981 for full-time undergraduates.

Aided undergraduates with low family incomes were more likely to receive Pen

grants, alone, than those with high family incomes.

Aided undergraduates who attended public or private, not-for-profit institutions

were more likely to receive Pen grants, alone, than those who attended private, forprofit institutions.

Forty-two percent of aided undergraduates received Guaranteed Student Loans

(GSLS). Eleven percent of all aided undergraduates received these aid awards,

alone, for an average GSL of $2,585 for full-time undergraduates.

Aided undergraduates with high family incomes were more likely to borrow GSLS

than those whose family incomes were in the lower income brackets.

Students who attended private, for-profit institutions were more likely to borrow

GSLS than those who attended public or private, not-for-profit institutions.

vii
Foreword

Table of

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Highlight s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ● . . . . ● . . . .

Contents

Page

. . . . ...* . . . . ...* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

. . . . . ● ● ● ✎☛ ✎ ● ✎ ● ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ● ✎ ✎ ● ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ● ✎ ✎ ✎ ● ✎ ●

✎ ● ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ● ● o . . ● . . . . ● . . . . . . . . . . .

Chapter I: An Overviev . . . ● . .*. . . . . . . ● . . . . ● . ● ● . . ● . . . . . . . . . . . ● . . . . . . . . . .

Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..O. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Report structure . . . . . . . ● . ● . . ● . . ● . . . ● . . . . . . . ● . ● . ● ● . . . ● . ● . . . . . ● . ● . . . ● . .

Caveats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ● . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .*. . ● . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Background . . . . ...*. . . . . ...*. . . . . . . . . . . . . ...0.0 . . . . . ...0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chapter II: Aid Awards by Source of Aid ● . . . . . . . . . . . ...0.. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Background . . . . . . . . . . . ● . . . . ● . . ● . . . . ., . . . ● ● . . . . . ● . . . . . . . ● . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

How sources of aid vere combined . . ● ● . ● ● ● . . . . ● . . . ● . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Characteristics of recipient s . . . . ● . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ● . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chapter 111: Aid Awards by Type of Aid . . . . . . . . . ● . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...*..* . . ...*.. . ..*.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

How types of aid were combined . . . ● . . . . ● . . . . . . ● . ● . . ● . ● . . . . ● . . . . ● . . . . . .

Characteristics of recipients . . . . . . . . . . . . ...* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chapter IV: Aid Awards by Source and Type of Aid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ● . . .

How the components of aid avards vere combined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Characteristics of recipient s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ● . . . . . . .

Chapter V: Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ● . . . . . . .

Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...0.... ., .0..0.. ● ....... . .. .... .. . .. . ...*.. .

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Appendices

Appendix A: Detailed tables for chapters II, 111, and IV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Appendix B: Technical Notes . . . . . . . . . . ..*..... . . . . . . . . . . . ...*... . ..*...

Appendix C: Components of the grants only avard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Appendix D: All aid avards by source andtype of aid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Figures

Figure 2.1--Contributions of the four sources of aid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Figure 3.1--Percentage of total student financial aid, by

type of aid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ● . .

Figure 4.1--Average amount of aid avarded, by aid avard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Text Tables

l .1--Undergraduates enrolled in the fall of 1986 by aid status

for the 1986-87 academic year and selected student and

institutional characteristic . . . ...0.. . . . . . . . . . .0 .,....0........ . . .

2.1--Aided under~raduates enrolled in the fall of 1986 vho vere

avarded

sources

aid-for the 1986-87 academic year, by number of

of aid and source of aid . . . . ● ● . . . . . . ● ● . ● . . . . ● . ● . . . ● . . . . . . .

ix

iv

v

1

1

2

2

3

7

7

7

10

17

17

18

20

27

27

30

34

43

47

53

55

75

95

99

8

;;

4

9
PaEe

2.2--Average aid award and composition of three, multiple-source

aid awards to undergraduates enrolled in the fall of 1986

vho received aid for the 1986-87 academic year, by control

of institution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ● . . .

2.3--Aided undergraduates enrolled in the fall of 1986 who were

avarded Federal aid, only, for the 1986-87 academic year,

by selected student and institutional characteristic . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.4--Aided undergraduates enrolled in the fall of 1986 vho vere

awarded institutional aid, only, for the 1986-87 academic

year, by selected student and institutional characteristic . . . . . . . .

2.5--Aid+d undergraduates enrolled in the fall of 1986 who vere

avarded private aid , only, for the 1986-87 academic year,

by selected student and institutional characteristic . ..0..... . . . . .

2.6--Aided undergraduates enrolled in the fall of 1986 vho vere

avarded Federal and State aid, only, for the 1986-87

academic year, by selected student and institutional

characteristic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.7--Aided undergraduates enrolled in the fall of 1986 vho vere

avarded Federal and institutional aid, only, for the

1986-87 academic year, by selected student and institutional

characteristic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. *...*. . ..*.... . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.8--Aided undergraduates enrolled in the fall of 1986 vho vere

awarded Federal, State, and institutional aid, only, for

the 1986-87 academic year, by selected student and

institutional characteristic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ● . . . . . . .

3.1--Aided undergraduates enrolled in the fall of 1986 who were

avarded aid for the 1986-87 academic year, by the number of

types of aid and aid avard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3.2--The average amounts and percentage distribution of singletype components of multiple-type avards to full-time aided

undergraduates, by avard and control of the institution . . . . . . . . . . .

3.3--Aided undergraduates enrolled in the fall of 1986 who vere

avarded grants only, for the 1986-87 academic year by

selected student and institutional characteristic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3.4--Aided undergraduates enrolled in the fall of 1986 vho vere

avarded grants and loans, only, for the 1986-87

academic year, by selected student and institutional

characteristic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3.5--Aided undergraduates enrolled in the fall of 1986 vho vere

avarded loans only, for the 1986-87 academic year by

selected student and institutional characteristic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3.6--Aided undergraduates enrolled in the fall of 1986 vho vere

avarded grants, loans, and vork-study aid, only, for

the 1986-87 academic year, by selected student and

institutional characteristic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3.7--Aided undergraduates enrolled in the fall of 1986 who vere

avarded grants and vork-study aid, only, for the

1986-87 academic year, by selected student and

institutional characteristic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

18

19

21

22

23

24

25

x
Page

4.1--Aided undergraduates enrolled in the fall of 1986 vho vere

avarded aid for the 1986-87 academic year and average

aid avard, by aid avard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...* . . . . . . . . . . . 29

4.2--Aided undergraduates vho received aid components by

themselves and in combination vith all other aid

components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

4.3--Aided undergraduates vho received combinations of tvo aid

avard components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...*.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

4.4--Aided undergraduates vho received combinations of Pen and

GSL vith other aid components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ● *....... . 31

4.5--Aided undergraduates enrolled in the fall of 1986 vho vere

avarded guaranteed student loans, only, for the

1986-87 academic year, by selected student and

institutional characteristic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

4.6--Aided undergraduates enrolled in the fall of 1986 who vere

avarded Pen grants, only, for the 1986-87 academic

year, by selected student and institutional

characteristic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

4.7--Aided undergraduates enrolled in the fall of 1986 vho vere

avarded GSL and Pen aid, only, for the 1986-87

academic year, by selected student and institutional

characteristic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

4.8--Composition of three multiple-component aid avards received

by full-time undergraduates vho vere enrolled in the

fall of 1986 for the 1986-87 academic year and

average aid avard, by aid avard and control of

institution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

4.9--Aided undergraduates enrolled in the fall of 1986 vho vere

avarded institutional grant aid, only, for the 1986-87

academic year, by selected student and institutional

characteristic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

4.10--Aided undergraduates enrolled in the fall of 1986 vho vere

avarded a combination of Pen, other Federal grants,

and State grants for the 1986-87 academic year, by

selected student and institutional characteristic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

4.11--Aided undergraduates enrolled in the fall of 1986 vho vere

awarded private grant aid, only, for the 1986-87

academic year, by selected student and institutional

characteristic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

4.12--Aided undergraduates enrolled in the fall of 1986 vho

were awarded private grants, only, for the 1986-87

academic year, by selected student and institutional

characteristic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Appendix Tables

A2.la--Aided dependent undergraduates enrolled in the fall of

1986, by source of aid avard, cost of attendance, and

family income . . . . ..* . . . . . . . . . . ● , . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . ● . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

xi
I

I

Page

A2.lb--Aided independent undergraduates enrolled in the fall of

1986, by source of aid award, cost of attendance, and

family income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

A2.2--Aided undergraduates enrolled in the fall of 1986, by

source of aid avard and control and level of

institution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

A2.3--Aided undergraduates enrolled in the fall of 1986, by

source of aid avard, attendance status and dependency

status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

A2.4--Aided undergraduates enrolled in the fall of 1986, by

source of aid avard, age, academic level, and grade

point average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...**.. . . . . . . . 61

A2.5--Aided undergraduates enrolled in the fall of 1986, by

source of aid, sex, and race/ethnicity . ...00... . . . ...0.. . . . . . . . . . 62

A3.la--Aided dependent undergraduates enrolled in the fall of

1986, by type of aid avard, cost of attendance, and

family income ● *........ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...* ● O..*.*.. . . . . . 63

A3.lb--Aided independent undergraduates enrolled in the fall of

1986, by type of aid avard, cost of attendance, and

family income .. *..*.*. ● *.*..... . ..0..... .* *.*.**. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

A3.2--Aided undergraduates enrolled in the fall of 1986, by

type of aid avard, and control and level of

institution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...* . . . ...*.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

A3.3--Aided undergraduates enrolled in the fall of 1986, by

type of aid avard, attendance status, and dependency

status . , ● . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

A3.4--Aided undergraduates enrolled in the fall of 1986, by

type of aid avard, age, academic level, and grade

point average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...0. . . . . . . . . 67

A3.5--Aided undergraduates enrolled in the fall of 1986, by

type of aid avard, sex, and race/ethnicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

A4.la--Aided dependent undergraduates enrolled in the fall of

1986, by aid avard, cost of attendance, and level

of family income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

A4.lb--Aided independent undergraduates enrolled in the fall of

1986, by aid avard, cost of attendance, and level of

family income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

A4.2--Aided undergraduates enrolled in the fall of 1986, by

source and type of avard, and control and level of

institution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ● . ● ● . . . . . ● . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

A4.3--Aided undergraduates enrolled in the fall of 1986, by

source and type of avard, attendance status, and

dependency status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

xii
Page

A4.4--Aided undergraduates enrolled in the fall of 1986, by

source and type of award, age, academic level, and

grade point average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...0 . ..0..... . . 73

A4.5--Aided undergraduates enrolled in the fall of 1986, by

source and type of aid award, sex, and racelethnicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

B.1--Response rates for the student questionnaire mailout

based on student characteristics from the institutional

records data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

B.2--Standard errors for aided undergraduates enrolled in the

fall of 1986 who were awarded aid from a single source

for the 1986-87 academic year and for average award,

b source and selected student and institutional

c{aracteristic . . . . . . . . . . . . . ● . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ● . ● . . . . ● ● . . ● . . . . . ● . . . . . . 84

B.3--Standard errors for aided undergraduates enrolled in the

fall of 1986 who were awarded one of three multi lesource awards and average aid award, by source o! award,

and award, and selected student and institutional

characteristic ● . . . ...*. . . . . . . . . . . ...0.... ● . . . ...*. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

B.4--Standard errors for aided undergraduates enrolled in the

fall of 1986 who were awarded aid for the 1986-87

academic year and average award, by type of aid award

and selected student and institutional characteristic . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

B.S--Standard errors for aided undergraduates enrolled in the

fall of 1986 who were awarded one of nine multiplecomponent aid awards for the 1986-87 academic year and

average aid award, by aid award and selected student

and institutional characteristic . . ● ● . . . .*. . . . . . ● . . ..* . . . . ● . . ● ● . . .* 90

B.6--Standard errors of average awards for aided undergraduates

enrolled in the fall of 1986 who were awarded one of nine

multiple-component aid awards for the 1986-87 academic

year, by aid award and selected student and institutional

characteristic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...*.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

Cl--Aided undergraduates who received grant only awards, by the

type of award they received . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

D.1--The aid awards constructed using the eight component

classification scheme, by component, unweighed frequency,

percentage receiving the award, and the average amount

of the award for full-time students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

. . . X111
Chapter 1: An Ovewiew

Purpose

Issues related to financial aid for students enrolled in postsecondary institutions have

been and continue to be the subject of study, analysis, argument and debate. In 1985,

the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) initiated The National Postsecondary

Student Aid Study (NPSAS) to better address these student financial aid issues. The

NPSAS survey collected information for the first time during the 1986-87 school year. (A

more detailed description of this survey is provided in the technical notes section of

appendix A.) Two reports have been released by NCES based on this database. The

first report focused on how undergraduates financed their postsecondary education in

the 1986-87 academic year and the second report focused on graduate and firstprofessional students.

This report focuses on the combinations of aid (or aid awards or packages)

undergraduate students received from one or more financial aid programs. One of the

chapters in the first NPSAS report provided information on combinations of aid to

undergraduates, but this report provides more detail on this important issue. The NPSAS

survey identified a total of 65 different aid programs from which a student could receive

aid. Because the number of ways these aid programs can be combined to describe

student aid awards is in the millions, useful analysis requires that the programs be

grouped together in meaningful ways. 2 Three ways have been chosen for this report;

however, the richness of the NPSAS data base permits a multitude of different analytic

approaches.

2

Numerous methods have been used to describe aid awards. Nichols (1980) defined them most

narrowly by restricting his exploration to the Campus-Based Aid Program, Smith and Henderson (1977)

were slightly more inclusive than Nichols. They added Pelt grants. Stampen and Cabrara (1986a) looked

at grants, loans, and college work-study. Wagner and Tabler (1977) and Olivas (1985) broke out transfer

benefits from grants to use a four category typology. Carroll (1984) used grants and loans but broadened

work to include both work-study and off-campus earnings (non-term-time employment). Stampen and

Cabrara (1986b) grouped aid into three categories based on the extent to which financial need was

demonstrated. The broadest methodology was used by Anderson (1986) when he used grants, loans,

scholarships, college work-study and personal resources (parental contributions and student self-support)

as package components. Packages were also analyzed, by source, by Wagner and Rice (1977) and

Olivas (1985). Both used two components, Federal and non-Federal. Finally, one of the most unique

approaches to constructing packages was proposed by Maw (1987) who used cluster analysis to develop

package components.

1
Report structure

Chapters 2, 3, and 4 of this report each present a different way of describing the aid

awards that undergraduate students received. Chapter 2 groups aid by source. There

are four sources: Federal, State, institutional (i.e., the postsecondary institution), and

private. Chapter 3 groups aid by type: grants, loans, and work-study. Chapter 4

combines the approaches in the prior two chapters. Chapter 5 provides a summary of

the findings. A glossary is provided at the end of chapter 5. The appendices provide

additional findings or results of the analyses and technical notes on sampling, survey and

item response rates, variable definitions, and standard errors of estimates. In each

chapter the following two questions are addressed:

1. How were the sources and/or types of aid combined to produce aid awards?

2. What are the

awards?

Caveats

characteristics of the undergraduate students who received these

The data presented in this report are based on a nationally representative sample of

postsecondary students enrolled in the fall of 1986. Since ‘the” data are based” on a

sample, they are estimates and therefore subject to sampling variability. Because the

sample is of students enrolled in the fall, it does not represent all students enrolled in a

postsecondary institution at all times during the 1986-87 school year. 3 This report

focuses on aided undergraduates, only. me tables in each chapter contain information

on the percentage of aided undergraduates who received awards. Information on the

average amount of the awards is found in appendix A.

Some of the estimates presented in this report may differ slightly from estimates

presented in the initial NPSAS report of undergraduate financing of postsecondary

education. There are two reasons for this. First, the NPSAS report was based on a

preliminary data file. The final data file refines some variables and contains additional

variables that are used in this report. Second, in computing average awards, the first

NPSAS report placed undergraduates into one of two groups: a “full-time, full-year”

group; or an “all other” group. This report places undergraduates into one of three

groups: a “full-time, full-year” group; a “half-time” or more but not full-time” group; or a

3

A detailed discussion of the differences between the NPSAS fall sample database and other data

bases is found on pp. 119-137 of the first NPSAS report: Undergraduate Financing of Postsecondary

Education: A Reporl of the 1987 National Postsecondaty Student Aid Study, May 1988 U.S. Department

of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

2
“less than half-time” group. In this report a student who attended a postsecondary

institution in the fall but not in the spring term would have his or her award multiplied by

two and placed in the “full-time, full-year” group. This procedure has led to slightly larger

average awards than those in the first NPSAS report. While comparisons between

characteristics of students and postsecondary institutions, on the one hand, and student

financial aid awards, on the other hand, are presented in this repod, no causal

relationship can be assumed between aid received and any student or institutional

characteristics or behaviors.

Background

At most postsecondary institutions, the student financial aid office coordinates and

distributes student financial aid. This may be a complex task. The office must be

sensitive to the needs of the institution to attract the most qualified students, while at the

same time provide an equitable distribution of its financial aid resources among its needy

students. Furthermore, all the aid its students receive is not directly under institutional

control. Frequently, students bring aid with them when they come to an institution.

Federal aid in the form of Pen Grants and Guaranteed Student Loans, now called

Stafford Loans, some forms of State aid, and aid from private employers are examples

of the aid which students may bring with them to the campus. The student financial aid

office is further limited by the aid provider in how it distributes aid. For example, the

Federal Government typically requires that the aid recipient attend school at least halftime, make satisfactory progress in his or her course of study, receive no more than

legislated maximum amounts for an individual program, and demonstrate a financial need.

To calculate a student’s financial need, the institution’s financial aid office must account

for the student’s room and board costs as well as the costs of books, supplies,

transportation, and personal expenses. In addition, the procedure takes into account

what the family is expected to contribute to the financing of school expenses. Both the

calculation of school expenses and the expected family contribution must take into

consideration unique student financial circumstances. Out of this milieu of goals,

constraints, and considerations, the institution’s financial aid office then constructs an aid

award, or package, for each individual student in need of one.

Each institution may be expected to allocate its financial aid resources to best meet

the financial needs of its students. Yet, when examining the distribution of aid to

undergraduates at many different institutions, the patterns of aid distribution which

emerge may suggest otherwise. This is to be expected. Different institutions have at

their disposal different forms and amounts of financial aid and different institutions attract

students with differing personal resources and differing amounts of aid which they bring

to campus with them. For example, private, not-for-profit institutions have more

institutional aid available for their students than other institutions, while public institutions

have a greater proportion of students who bring aid with them from private sources, such

as emplbyers. For these reasons, it is inappropriate to assume that the distributions

3
presented in this report reflect the distribution of aid at any one institution.

Table 1.1 puts the findings on aided undergraduates into the larger context of all

undergraduates enrolled in the fall of 1986. It presents the proportion of all

undergraduates who received any financial aid in the 1986-87 school year by the student

characteristics that are used throughout the report.

Table 1. l--llodergraduetes emrolled in the fall of 1986, by ● id statue for the 1986-87

academic year aod selected studemt and imetitutiomel cberacteriotic

Aided Aided

Dependency status, Number under- Selected institutional Number undercoet of attendance (in graduates and 8 tudent (in graduates

and family income thoue. ) (percent) characteristic thous. ) (percent)

As

Dependent students

Low cost:

Low family income

Median family income

High family income

High cost:

Lov family income

Median family income

High family income

Independent students

Lov cost:

Low family income

Median family income

High family income

High coat :

Low family income

Median family income

Eigh f amlly income

11,185 48.6

7,04s

960

1,306

1,67S

665

884

1,553

4,13s

690

729

1,73s

310

336

325

47. s

56.9

3s.4

21.3

84.6

73.1

4s.4

49.9

59.4

55.2

2S.4

87.4

S8.4

57.4

Total 1 1, 185 48 . 6

Control of institution

Public S,55S 41.4

Private, not-for-profit 2,026 6S.1

Private, for-profit 602 85.0

Attendance status

Ful 1- t ime 6,960 60.3

Half-time or more 2,209 3s.3

Less than half-time 2,017 19.1

Age

23 or younger

24-29

30 or older

Academic level

Contact hour

Freshman

Sophomore

Junior

Senior

Grade point average ~1

2.3 or lese

2.6-2. s

2.9-3.3

3.6-4.0

6,754 52.9

1,880 45.5

2,551 39.4

558

3,645

2,s14

1,769

2,599

2,461

1,546

2,146

1,544

69.3

50.1

46.4

50.5

43.0

45.3

48.8

47.4

46.5

1/ Details d dd 1 b f missing values.

~j Pertains ~on~~e~it-zu~o~;d er~~~;;~t;s only.

NOTE: Percentages are based on unduplicated counts of aided under raduates;

!

They do not

add to total eince each percentage is baeed on the number of ai ed undergraduates vith the

eelected characteristic. Details on the number of students may not add to total due to

rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Educatinn, National Center for Education Statistics, 1987

NatiOnal Posts econdary Student Aid Study.

can be seen from this table, slightly less than one-half (49 percent) of all

undergraduates who were enrolled in the fall of 1986 received some form of financial aid

during the 1986-87 academic year. Undergraduates from low income families were more

likely to receive aid than those from high income families. Those who attended a highcost institution were more likely to receive aid than those who attended a low-cost

institution, controlling for level of family income. Undergraduates who attended a private,

for-profit institution were more likely to receive aid than those who attended a public

institution (85 versus 41 percent, respectively). Full-time undergraduates were more likely

4
than those who attended less than half-time to receive some form of financial aid (60

versus 19 percent, respectively) and contact-hour students were more likely than credithour students to receive financial aid. Finally, receiving financial aid seems to be

unrelated to the grade point average these students earned.

5
Chapter 11: Aid Awards by Source of Aid

Background

There are four sources of student financial aid: Federal, State4, institutional, and

private. Postsecondary institutions are the institutional source. As figure 2.1 indicates,

of all the aid awarded to undergraduates enrolled in postsecondary institutions in the fall

of 1986, the Federal Government was the largest supplier, furnishing 62 percent of all

funds, with institutions providing 21 percent, States 11 percent, and private sources about

6 percent.

This pattern has existed over the past decade. The Federal government has been

the largest supplier of student financial aid since the 1965-66 academic year.5

How sources of aid were combined

Although there are but four sources of aid, one of the most striking aspects of aid

awards is that these sources are not frequently combined. Close to 60 percent of all

aided undergraduates received an award stemming from one source alone. Only 11

percent of aided undergraduates received an award combining three or more sources

(table 2.1 ). ,

Because the Federal Government was the dominant supplier of financial aid, it’s not

surprising to find that more undergraduates relied on this source of aid than any other.

Seventy-one percent of aided undergraduates received some Federal aid, and 32 percent

received only Federal aid (table 2.1 ). The Federal aid, only, award was the largest of all

single-source packages ($3,41 4).

4

States provide sizeable amounts of aid to public institutions enabling them to charge lower

tuitions than private institutions, While these amounts may be thought of as financial aid to all students

who attend these institutions, they are not usually included in a discussion of student financial aid and

will be excluded from the discussion here.

5

For data on trends in sources of student financial aid since the 1963-64 academic year, see the

College Board series of publications, Trends in Student Financia/Aid, However, these publications do not

separate Sources of funds by education level, undergraduate, graduate, and first-professional, and they

do not provide data on private sources.

7
Figure 2.1--Contributions of the four

sources of aid

Federai

Private

6%

state

11% nStitution

21%

SOURCE: The 1987 National Posts econdary

Student Aid Study

8
Table 2.1 --Aided umlergraduatee emrolled in the fall of 1986 who were amrded nid for the 1986-87

acadtie year, by number of eourcee of ● id WA emurce of aid lJ

Number

Average award

Aid award by Aided for full-time aided

of aourcea source of aid undergraduates undergraduates ~1

Number (in thousands) 58631

Three

Percent

Ome A3.1 ei le-eource avcrde

Y

58.1

Federal on y 32.’4 .$3,414

Institutional only 15.2

Private only

2,133

7.7

State only

2,005

2.8 1,333

Ul two-source ● werde 30.3

Federal and state only 16.4 3,928

Federal and institutional only 9.0 5,794

k;;;t;t%;~~t~r%;{e only

2.2 4,792

1.5 3,963

State and institutional only 1.0 3,589

State and private only 0.2 3,307

A3S thxee-eource awcrde 10.0

Federal, atate, and institutional only 6.9

Federal,

6,706

state, and private only 1.6 6,886

Federal, institutional, and private only 1.3 7,442

State, institutional, and private only 0.2 5,731

?our Federal, State, inetitutiomcl, ● nd private 1.4 S,156

Percentages will not auto to 100 ecause some aided un ergraduates id not report their source of aid.

~~ See Appendix B for a discussion ~f students included ~n each atten~ance status.

NOTE : The percentages are based on unduplicated counts of aided undergraduates.

gOURCE : U. S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,

19S7 National Posts econdarv Student Aid Study.

Institutions provided 21 percent of the aid received, and supported 36 percent of aided

undergraduates (table 2.1 ). About half of the undergraduates who received institutional

aid, received it alone.

States were the third largest suppliers of student financial aid. Despite the fact that

roughly one-third (31 percent) of aided undergraduates received State aid (table 2.1),

very few (3 percent) relied on it as their only source. Hence, State aid was much more

likely to be combined with aid from other sources, especially Federal aid, than awarded

by itself.

Private sources supplied only 6 percent of all the aid awarded. It went to 16 percent

of aided students, about half (49 percent) of whom received an award consisting solely

of private aid (table 2.1). The average private aid, only, award was similar in amount to

the average institutional aid award and larger than the average State aid, only, award.

Components of multiple-source awards

Table 2.2 examines the three most commonly held multiple-source aid awards: Federal

and State, only; Federal and institutional, only; and Federal, State, and institutional, only

awards. In each of these three multiple-source awards the Federal component was the

9
largest, ranging from a high of 70 percent of all aid on average to slightly less than 50

percent of all aid.

Table 2.2 also indicates that the amounts representing each of the components varied

by control of the postsecondary institution. The Federal component of the Federal and

State aid, only, award was largest at public institutions. The institutional component of

the Federal and institutional aid, only, award was largest for undergraduates at private,

not-for-profit institutions.

Table 2. Z--Average aid award sod campmitiom of three miltiple-eource aid award. awarded to full-time

Umdergradaatee emrolled in the f ● ll of 1986 whm received aid for the 19$6-87 academic year, by

comtrol of last i tut iom

Federal and Federal, State

Federal and State only institutional only ● nd institutional only

Control Perc*llt Percent

of

Percent

Average Average Average

institution amount ● Federal State amount ● Federal In8t. ● mount ● ~ederal State Inet.

Total s 3,928 69 . 30 . 1 S5 v 794 59 . 0 41 . 0 s 69708 46 . 9 24 . 28 . 2

Control

Public 3,466 73.9 26.1

Private,

4,184 68.9 31.1 4,664 56.6 19.9 23.4

not-for-profit 5,151 61.3 38.7 6,986 54.3 45.7

Private,

7,679 44.1 26.2 29.8

for-profit 6,095 62.4 37.6 6,574 63.1 36.9 -- -- -- . .

3 Average amount8 are for aided f 11 -time under raduates.

f

Ava rd amount 8 for under raduates who reported

that the were enrolled full. ti~e for the fal term only were included b multip fying their award

amounts {y two. Thie procedure may represent an under-or over-e.timate for those studente vho attended

public, for-profit Institution which are not typically on a terms system.

-- Too few cases for a reliable estimate.

SOURCE : U.S. De artment of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,

1987 National osteecondary I Student Aid Study.

Characteristks of recipients

The Federal aid, only, recipients

Thirty-two percent of aided undergraduates received federal aid, only, in an amount

averaging $3,414 (table 2.1). Legislation requires that Federal student financial aid be

directed to needy students. Table 2.3 indicates that undergraduates who only received

Federal aid were more likely to be those from families with low than high family incomes.

(l%e exception to this is independent students attending high cost institutions.) Aided

undergraduates who attended private, for-profit institutions were more likely to receive

only Federal aid than those who attended other types of institutions. Aided

undergraduates who attended private, not-for-profit institutions were least likely to receive

such an award (table 2.3).

Aided undergraduates enrolled half-time or more, but not full-time, were about as likely

to be awarded Federal aid, only, as full-time students (table 2.3) were. The age group

most likely to receive Federal aid, only, was the 24- to 29-year-old group. Independent

10
students were more likely than dependent students to receive such an award (40 versus

28 percent, respectively). Among credit-hour students, those with the lowest grade noint

averages (GPA) were more likely to receive Federal aid, only, than those with the highest

GPA. (Appendix A contains tables with additional information to that provided in the text.

For example, tables A2.1 a-A2.5 contain information on average award amounts, the

distribution of awards by institution level, attendance status, academic level, sex, and

race/ethnicity.)

Table 2.3--Aided under rsduetem emrolhd in the f ● ll of 1986 wlw were auerded ?ederal

.td, ody, for the 1986-B7 . ..daai. year by .ele.ted ● tude.t ● d i..tit.tiomal

characteristic

Dependency statue, Number Federal Selected institutional

cost of attendance, (in

Number Federsl

● nd student

thous. ) ?~~r% )

(in

and family income

● id only

characteristic thous. ) (percent)

5,431 32.4

3,367 28.0

547

501

357

33.1

30.1

24.9

563

647

752

31.5

24.3

25.0

39.5

409

402

494

271

297

186

42.9

41.1

28.4

42.1

47.1

41.5

Dependent etudents

LOW cost:

Lov family income ~1

Medium family income

High family income

‘Wvc;%ly income

Ued ium family income

High family income

Independent students

Lov co8t:

Low family income

Medium family income

High family income

‘i*wc~%ly income

Medium family income

High family income

1/ Lov cost refers to student reported attendance coats leas than the medi an coet for

under raduatea of $4,523.

than .!18.641. $18,641 to $36,076, and more than $36,076. For independent atudenta

The three income rangea for dependent students are: leee

theee ran es are: less than $5,028, $5,028 to $15,769, and more than $15,069.

Appendix # for a more detailed diacu.aion.

See

Z/ Details do not add to total becauee of miesing valueo.

~/ Pertains to credit-hour undergraduate only.

Control of institution

Public 3,540 32.5

Private, not-for-profit 1,380 15.0

Private, for-profit 511 78.1

Attendance etatue

Full - time 4,200 33.1

Half-time or more 845 38.2

Lese than half-time 386 11.7

Age

;: ;; younger

30 or older

3,571 29.8

85S 43.1

1,004 32.4

Grade point average ~/

2.3 or less 1,115 34.8

2.4-2.8 754 29.9

2.9-3.3 1,016 28.3

3.4-4.0 718 22.7

NOTE: Percenta8ee are based on unduplicated counts of aided under raduaten; They do

not add to total eince each percentage ie baeed on the number o ! aided undergraduates

vith the selected characteristic. Details of the number of students my not sdd to

total due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center fo,r Education Statiwtice,

1987 National Po8teecondarv Student Aid Study.

The institutional aid, only, recipients

Fifteen percent of aided undergraduates received aid from institutions, only, in an

amount averaging $2,133 (table 2.1 ). The characteristics of these aid recipients were very

different from those who received only Federal aid (table 2.3). Aided undergraduates

from families in the highest income bracket were more likely to receive this type of award

than those from families in the lowest income bracket. ~lded students who attended

public or a private, not-for-profit institutions were more likely to receive this award than

those who attended private, for-profit institutions. Students who received only Federal aid

11
.

or only institutional aid differed in attendance status. The Federal aid, only, recipients

were most likely to attend school half-time or more while the institutional aid, only,

recipients were most likely to be enrolled less than half-time. Finally, aided

undergraduates with the highest grade point averages were more likely to receive

institional aid, only, awards than those with the lowest GPAs.

Table 2.4 --Aided undergraduates emrolled in the f ● ll of 1986 who were awarded

imetitutiomel a%d, only, for the 1986-87 ● csdtic per by oelected etudent

amd institutiomsl characteristic

Dependency statue, Number Instit. Selected institutional

coet of attendance, (in

Number Inetit.

aid only and etudent (in aid only

and family income thous. ) (percent ) characteristic thous. ) (percent) I

Total 5,631 15 . 2

I

Total 5,431 15 . 2

Dependent student e

Lov coet:

Low family income

Medium family income

High family income

High cost:

Lov family income

Medium family income

High f ami 1 y income

3,367 18.4 Co;~b;~cof institution

Private, not-for-profit

Private, for-profit

3,540

1,380

511

17.0

15.6

2.3

547

sol

357

14.1

23.8

37.4

Attendance etatus

Full - time

Half-time or more

Lese than half-time

4,200

845

386

13.3

15.9

34.6

563

647

752

6.6

10.6

24.7

Ane

Independent etudents I

Lov coet:

Lov family income

tfedium family income

High family income

High cost:

Lov family income

Hedium family income

High family income

10.0 ‘;: ;; younger

-

30 or older

3,571

a55

1.004

16.0

12.5

409 14.9

402

494

7.2

9.8

18.2 Grade point average gl

2.3 or lees

2.4-2.8

2.9-3.3

3.4-4.0

1,115

754

1,016

718

12.3

13.7

15.7

21.1

271

297

186

3.8

3.1

14.2

NOTE: Percentage are baeed on unduplicated counte of aided under raduatea;

not add to total since each percentage la based on the number o ! aided unde;~d~tea

vith the eelected characteristic. Details of the number of etudenta may not add to

total due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Netional Center for Education Statistic,

L987 National Posts econdary Student Aid Study.

I

The private aid, only, recipients

Eight percent of aided undergraduates received awards, from private sources, in

annual amounts averaging which had an $2,005 (table 2.1). The characteristics of those

aided undergraduates who received private aid awards were very similar to those who

received the institutional aid, only, awards (table 2.4).

Aided undergraduates from families in the highest family income bracket were more

likely to receive the private aid, only, award than those from families in the lowest income

bracket (table 2.5). Those aided undergraduates who attended public or private, not-forprofit institutions were more likely to receive this type of award than those who attended

private, for-profit institutions. Like those who received only institutional aid, these

12

-.
I

recipients were more likely to receive private aid if they attended less than half-time than

if they attended either full-time, or half-time, or more. Finally, those with high grade point

averages were more likely to receive this award than those with a low GPAs.

Table 2.5--Aided umdergraduetes emrolled in the fall of 1986 who vere wmrded

Letittationel eheraeter..tic

rivate aid, mmly, for the 1986.87 academic year by #elected student and

Dependency status, Number Private Selected institutional Number Private

cost of attendance, (in ● id only and student ( tn aid only

and f ami 1 y income thous. ) (percent ) characteristic thoua. ) (percent)

Dependent atudenta

LOW coet:

LOW family income

Medium family income

High family income

>,431 7.7

3,367 5.3

547 5.8

501

357 1;:;

563 1.3

647 2.6

752 4.9

409 4.2

402 4.9

494 34.2

271 1.7

297

186 l::i I

Total 5,431

Control of institution

Public 3,540

Private, not-for-profit 1,380

Private, for-profit 511

7.7

8.9

6.6

1.8

Attendance statue

Full-time 4,200

Half-time or more 84S

Lees than half-time 386

3.6

12.2

42.0

High coat:

Low family income

Medium family income

Eigh family income

Independent etudents

Low coet:

LOW family income

Pfed ium family income

High family income

‘i&cWly income

Uedium family income

High family income

1/ Details do not add to total because of missing valuea.

~1 Pertaina to credit-hour undergraduate only.

NOTE: Percentage are based on unduplicated counte of aided under raduates;

not add to total eince each percentage ie based on the number o ! aided unde~~d~~tee

with the eelected characteristic. Details of the number of students may not add to

total due to rounding.

Age

23 or younger 3,571

24-29 855

30 or older 1,004

Grade point average ZI

2.3 or lees 1,115

2.4-2.8 754

2.9-3.3 1,016

3.4-4.0 718

4.1

10.0

18.2

5.0

5.2

9.2

15.5

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,

1987 National Posteecondarv Student Aid Study.

Recipients of private aid, only, differed from those who received only institutional aid

in terms of dependency status and age. Dependent students were more likely to receive

only institutional aid whereas independent students were more likely to receive only

private aid. Age was not related to receipt of an institutional aid, Only, award but those

in the oldest age group were more likely to receive private aid, only, awards than those

in the younger age groups.

The State aid, only, recipients

The average amount of a State aid, only, award was $1,333 for the 3 percent of aided

undergraduates who received one (table 2.1 ). State aid was much more likely to be

combined with aid from other sources than to be awarded alone. It also tended to be

13
evenly distributed among aided undergraduates, regardless of student characteristics.

The Combined Federal and State aid, only, recipients

The 16 percent of aided undergraduates who were awarded a combination of Federal

and State received $3,928 on average (table 2.1 ). Because the Federal component in this

award represents, an average, 70 percent of the aid (table 2.2), its distribution among

aided undergraduates is expected to be similar to the distribution of the Federal aid, only,

award. Indeed, this is the case with respect to family income, attendance status, and

grade point average. Unlike the Federal aid, only, award, however, aided undergraduates

who attended public institutions were more likely than those who attended private, forprofit institutions to receive a combined Federal and State award.

Table 2. 6--didad undergraduate.e enrolled in the fall of 1986 who were awarded ?aderal

aod State ● id, ooly, for the 1986-87 ● cademic year. by selected student ad

imetitutiomal characteristic

Federal

Dependency status, Number

Federal

& State Selected institutional Number & State

cost of attendance, (in only and student (in

and family income

only

thous. ) (percent) characteristic thous. ) (percent)

Total 5,431 16 . 4

I Total 5,43T 16.4

Dependent students 3,367 15.5

Low cost:

LOW family income 5.47 25.5

Medium family income 501 17.5

High family income 357 5.5

High coet :

Lov family income 563 22.3

Medium family income 647 15.7

High family income 752 6.1

Independent students ~/ 2,06& 1s.0

Low cost:

Low family income 409 26.2

Medium family income fbo2 24.3

Eigh family income 494 4.3

High. cost:

Low family income 271 24.0

Uedium family income 297 21.4

HiSh family income 186 8.5

Control of institution

Public 3,540 19.5

Private, not-for-profit 1,380 10.7

Private, for-profit 511 10.5

Attendance status

Full - time 4,200 18.4

Half-time or more 845 13.7

Less than half-time 386 0.1

Age

23 or younger

24-29

30 or older

3,571 16.6

855 15.7

1,004 16.3

Grade point average ~1

2.3 or less 1,115 21.5

2.4-2. S 754 19.9

2.9-3.3 1,016 15.3

3.4-4.0 718 9.5

NOTE: Percentages are based on unduplicated counts of aided under raduates;

not add to total since each percentage ia based on the number o ! aided unde~~d%te.

with the selected characteristic. Details of the number of students may not add to

total due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,

1987 National Posts econdary Student Aid Study.

The Federal and institutional aid, only, recipients

The average amount of aid that aided full-time undergraduates received for this type

14
of award was $5,794; nine percent of aided undergraduates received one (table 2.1).

This amount was the largest of the two-source aid awards. As table 2.2 indicates, on

averaye, 60 percent of the aid in this award came from the Federal Government and 40

percent came from postsecondary institutions. The average size of this award, and the

fairly substantial institutional aid component, suggest that those who attended high cost

private, not-for-profit institutions would be its primary recipients. This conjecture is

supported by the data in table 2.7. Students at these institutions were more likely to

receive a combination of Federal and institutional aid than those who attended the other

two types of institutions. Full-time students were more likely to receive this award than

those who attended less than full time. Aided undergraduates in the youngest age group

were more likely to receive a combination of Federal and institutional aid than those in the

older age groups. Finally, since we have seen that the Federal aid, only, and the

institutional aid, only, awards were distributed in dissimilar ways across income brackets,

it is not surprising to find that this award was approximately evenly distributed across

income groups.

Table 2.7--Aided umdergraduatee enrolled in the fall of 1986 who were ● warded Federal

mmd institutional aid, only, for the 1986-87 academic year by selected ● tudent

● md inetitutiond cberacteriatic

Federal

Dependency status,

Federal

Number 6 inst. Selected institutional Number

cost of attendance, (in

& inst.

and student

thous. ) (p~~~nt )

(in

snd family income

only

characteristic thoua. ) (percent)

Totsl 5,431 9.0 I

Total 5,431 .

Dependent students 3,367 10.0 Control of institution

Low coet: Public

Low family income

3,5’40

547 5.8 Private, not-for-profit 1,380 1:::

tledium fsmily income 501 4.7

High family income

Private, for-profit

357

511 3.1

4.0

Attendance status

High cost: Full-time

Lov family income 563

4,200 10.2

11.2 Half-time or more 865

33edium family income 647

6.7

13.4 Less than half-time 386

High fsmily income 752

0.7

15.7

I

Independent students ~j 2,064 7.4

Low cost:

LOW f smi 1 y income 409 7.9

Medium fsmily income 402 7.8

High fsmily income 494 3.7

High cost :

Lov family income 271 9.6

Medium family income 297 9.7

Eigh family income 186 8.1

Age

23 or younger

24-29

30 or older

3,571 10.7

855 6.5

1,004 5.2

Crsde point average ZI

2.3 or less 1,115 9.3

2.4-2.8 756 10.2

2.9-3.3 1,016 9.8

3.4-4.0 718 9.3

I D 1 d dd 1 b f miesing values.

~1 P%~i;s ;on~;e;it-~u;o?nder~ ;;%;t~s only.

NOTE: Percentages are based on unduplicated counts of aided under raduates;

not add to total since each percentage is based on the number o ! aided unde;~d~tes

vith the selected characteristic. Details of the number of students may not add to

total due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,

1987 National PostsecondarY Student Aid Study.

15
The Federal, State, and institutional aid, only, recipients

Aided undergradlJates who received this award (7 percent) received $6,706 on

average. The Federal component of this award was slightly less than 50 percent, on

average (table 2.2), with the other two components contributing roughly one-fourth each.

The average size of the award, along with the presence of an institutional aid component,

again suggest that aided undergraduates who attended private, not-for-profit institutions

would be its most likely recipients. Indeed, the data in table 2.8 indicate that these

students were more likely to receive this type of award than those at the other two types

of institutions. Traditional students (those in the youngest age group and those who

attended full time) were more likely than their counterparts to receive an award that

combined Federal, State, and institutional aid, on~. Finally. this tvpe of award seems to

be evenly distributed across grade point averages, but more likely to be received by

students from families in the low than high income brackets. 1

Table 2. 8-4ided undergraduates emrollad in the fall of 1986 who were ● warded Federal,

State, ● od institutional ● id, only, for the 19 S6-87 ● cademic year by selected

studeat ● md imtitutiomal cheracterimtic

Federal, Federal,

State &

Dependency status, Number

State L

instit. Selected institutional Number

COSG of attendance, (in

instit.

● nd student

thoue. ) (p%~%nt )

(in

and family income

only

characteristic thous. ) (percent)

Total 5,431 . I

Total 5,431 6 . 9

Dependent students

Low cost:

Low family income

Medium family income

High family income

‘ig!wJ:;h:i;FEome

High family income

3,367

547

501

357

563

647

752

Independent atudenta ~/ 2,064

Low coat:

Low family income 409

Medium family income 402

High family income 494

High coet:

Low f ami 1 y income 271

Medium family income 297

EiSh family income 186

8.6 Control of institution

Public 3,540

5.0

3.7

Private, not-for-profit 1,380 i7.3

3.0 Private, for-profit 511

1.3

0.6

Attendance atatua

Full-time 4,200

L4.8

8.2

Half-time or more 845

16.5

2.6

Leas than half-time 386

6.9

1.3

Age

4.0 23 or younger

24-29

3.5 30 or older

3.2

1.1 Grade point average ~1

2.3 or leaa

2.4-2.8

7.8 2.9-3.3

7.5 3.4-4.0

4.2

3,571

855

1,004

1,115

754

1,016

718

8.8

3.4

2.8

7.0

9.0

8.5

6.0

il D 11 d dd lb f miaai.ng valuea.

~1 P%ai:a ~on~~e~it-&~O~der&&t~a only.

NOTE: Percentage are baaed on unduplicated counts of aided under raduatea;

not add to total since each percentage is baaed on the number o ! aided unde~~~d~tea

with the selected characteristic. Details of the number of atudente may not add to

total due to rounding.

I

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statiatica,

1987 NatiOnal Poataecondarv Student Aid Study.

16
Chapter Ill: Aid Awards By Type Of Aid

Background

In this chapter, student financial aid is grouped into three categories by type of aid:

grants, loans, and work-study. These three groups of aid include a wide variety of more

specific types of aid. Grants include scholarships, tuition wavers, and fellowships. Workstudy includes employment received through the campus Office of Student Financial Aid,

but excludes work which the student obtained on his or her own initiative. The Federal

work-study program, which is by far the largest work-study program, subsidized the

student’s wages up to 80 percent in the 1986-87 academic year. Historically, the jobs

available to students have been primarily on campus and associated with work for a

nonprofit organization. Only recently has the Federal work-study program been extended

to students who are enrolled in private, for-profit postsecondary institutions. Teaching

and research assistantships also are included in the work-study category.

The estimated proportions of total aid provided to these aided undergraduates enrolled

in the fall of 1986, through these three types of aid, were 56.7 percent in grants, 37.0

percent in loans, and 6.3 percent in work-study (figure 3.1).6

Figure 3.1--Percentage of total student

financial aid, by type of aid

Grants

57%

Loans

37%

SOURCE: The 19B7 National Poa!secondary

Student Ala Study

:tudy

6

A somewhat different picture of the distribtiion of these three types of aid and how the distribution

has changed in recent years maybe obtained from College Board publications. As mentioned previously,

the College Board data are not broken out by level of education and exclude private aid sources (which

for undergraduates consists primarily of grant aid). Nonetheless, these data suggest that for all

postsecondary students, grant aid, as a proportion of all aid, has declined steadily between the 1975-76

and 1984-85 academic years. Since then, it has leveled off. Loan aid increased steadily between the

1975-76 and 1984-85 academic years. Since that period, ~ has leveled off also. Work-study aid has

always been a small and relatively constant portion of total aid.

17
How types of aid were combined

Just as undergraduates were more likely to receive a single-source aid award than a

multiple-source aid award, they were also more likely to receive a single-type aid award

than a multiple-type aid award. Fifty-nine percent of aided undergraduates received only

one type of aid in their award (table 3.1). The most common single-type aid award was

the grant, only, award, which went to 43 percent of aided undergraduates. Among

und”ergraduates who received a grant, 52 percent received only a grant; 48 percent

received a grant in combination with another type of aid. The average award for full-time

undergraduates who received a

with other types of aid, the total

grant alone was $2,456. When gr%ts were combined

average award was larger.

Table 3. l--Aided uwdergraduetes emrolled in the fall of 1986 who were ● werded aid for

the 1986-87 academic year, by the number of types of aid mid aid ● ward

Average award f

Number Aid awarde Aided full-time aide~r

of types by type of aid undergraduate undergraduates

Al 1 aided undergraduates 5,431

Ome Total 59.3

Granta only 43.0

Loans only 13.6

$2,456

2,793

Work-study only 2.7 1,652

Tww Total 32.7

Grants and loans only 27.6 5,343

Grants and work-study only 4.5 4,583

Loane and work-study only 0.6 6,114

Three Crante, loans, ● nd wwrk-mtudy 7.7 7,287

NuTE: Percentage are baeed on undupli cated counts of aided undergraduates.

SOURCE : U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,

1987 National Poets econdary Student Aid Study.

Undergraduates who borrowed were more likely to receive a loan in combination with

some other type of aid than to have a loan as the only type of aid they received. Of the

50 percent of aided undergraduates who borrowed, one-fourth (27.5 percent) relied on

loans alone; and three-fourths relied on loans in combination with other types of aid, the

most frequent combination being grant aid (table 3.1 ). Loans were much more likely to

be combined with grants than with work-study. The average loan, only, award was

$2,793, while the average loan and grant combination award was $4,583 for full-time,

aided undergraduates.

only 16 percent of aided undergraduates received work-study aid. Of these, the vast

majority received work-study aid in combination with other types of aid. Seventeen

percent of those who received work-study relied on it alone while 83 percent had their

work-study combined with another form of aid. Undergraduates who received work-study

18
I,,,

were much more likely to have it combined with grant aid than with loan aid, although the

proportion receiving grant and work study aid was small (4.5 percent).

Components of multiple-type aid awards

Of the various awards consisting of more than one type of aid, by far the most

common was the grant and loan combination (table 3.1 ). It was held by 28 percent of

aided undergraduates and had an average value of $5,343 for full-time undergraduates.

The next most common were the grant, loan, and work-study combination (average value,

$7,287) and the grants and work-study combination (average value, $4,583), held by 8

and 4 percent of aided undergraduates, respectively. One percent of aided

undergraduates held the loan and work-study combination. Multiple-type awards

averaged at least a thousand dollars more than single-type aid awards.

The proportions of grants and loans were equal (50 percent for each component) for

all full-time undergraduates who were awarded such a combination, but they varied

according to the type of institution the student attended (table 3.2). Undergraduates at

private, not-for-profit institutions had a larger proportion of grants (58 percent) than loans

(42 percent) in their awards. The opposite was the case for undergraduates at the

private, for-profit institutions (42 percent grants and 58 percent loans, on average).

Table 3.2--Tha avaragc awunta ● id parcmtqa distribution of single-type componmts of multiple-typo awards to full-tire

tidad undmgraduacm, by ● ward ● nd control of tha institution

ban ● UO work-at ~T rant ● wor -@t y Grant ● nd loan Grant , loan & vorkwmrd ● ward ● ward study ward

Control of cmpolmlt 9

last itut ion

component ● Component 9 c0mp0n*nc9

hers.$o Vork - Average v k- Averagc

● mount Losmc otudy Grant %dy

Average Tiork-

● mouot ● mount Cr*nt Loan ● ount Grant Loan study

Tots 1 w 9114 65 . 5 34 . $4 , 533 61 . 2 32 . S5 t 343 50 . 49 . 87 , 287 50 . 33 . 6 15 .

Control

Public 3,993 60.8 39.2 3,937 62.0 38.0 4,312 48.0 52.0 5,429 40.8 38.1 21.1

Private,

mot-for-profit 4,030 70.0 30.0 6,276 76.0 24.0 6,57S 57.7 42.2 0.835 56.4 31.1 12.5

Private,

for-profit -- .- .- .- -- .- 6,087 42.2 57. s -. -- .- .-

. . 00 few ca8e* for a reliabl ● ettimate.

NOTE : Percentm are baaed on unduplicated couata of aided undergraduate.

SOURCE: U. S. Departmmt of Education, Cantar for Education Stttiacicc,

.

Among all those who were awarded a combination of grants, loans, and work-study

awards, grants made up one-half (51 percent) of the award amount, loans made up onethird (34 percent) and work-study one-sixth (16 percent) (table 3.2). Undergraduates who

attended public institutions and received this award, had a smaller proportion of grants

in their packages (41 percent) and a larger proportion of loans and work-study. The

opposite was the case for undergraduates who attended private, not-for-profit institutions.

They received a slightly larger grants component and slightly smaller loans and work19
study components.

Because the overall proportion of work-study aid was much smaller than the proportion

of grant aid, it is not surprising to find that the work-study component of the combined

grant and work-study award was also smaller. Grants made up two-thirds of these

awards (table 3.3). For students who attended public institutions and received this

package, grants made up slightly less than two-thirds of it, while they made up more than

two-thirds for undergraduates at private, not-for-profit institutions.

Characteristics of r-”pients

The grant aid, only, recipients

These recipients represented 43 percent of all aided undergraduates. The full-time

undergraduates among them received, on average, an award of $2,456 (table 3.2). Grant

aid is often thought of as being targeted to the most needy students, with loan and workstudy aid used to supplement grant aid, if necessary.7 Such does not seem to be the

case for aided undergraduates enrolled in the fall of 1986. For independent students and

dependent students who attended high cost institutions, the proportion of those who

received grant aid, only, was greater among high family income students than low family

income students (table 3.3). If one expected a larger proportion of grant aid to be

awarded to students from low income families than middle income families (or more

middle income families than high income families), then this is surprising news. Howeverj

if one were to consider that there are four sources of grant aid (see chapter 11), this

comes as less surprising. As we have seen from the previous chapter, aided

undergraduates from high income families are more likely to receive institutional and

private aid than those from low income families. (See appendix C for a listing of all 31

aid combinations, using the chapter IV categorization scheme, that make up the grants,

only, award addressed in this chapter.)

7

See, for example, Hattman, 1978,

20
Table 3 .3--Aided umder raduatee emrolled in the f 811 of 1986 who were awarded grmte,

~:;c~i;~=191J6-117 .eademie year, by eelected ● tudeot .od institutional

Dependency status, Number Grant Selected institutional Number Grant

coat of attendance, (in and student

thous. ) !~r~~~~)

(in aid only

and family Lncome characteristic thoua. ) (percent)

Tota l 5,431 .43.0

Deuendent students 3,367 40.4

Low iost:

Low family income 547 58.0

Medium family income 501 48.8

High family income 357 55.4

‘WLc;%ly income 563 28.6

Medium family income 647 26.3

High family income 752 35.6

Inde~endent atudente II 2.064 47.2

Lov co; t:

-. .

Low family income 409 51.2

Hedium family income 402 49.6

High family income 494 68.9

High cost:

Low family income 271 27.9

Medium family income 297 27.0

High family income 186 36.1

Total 5,431 43.0

Control of institution

Public 3,540 50.3

Private, not-for-profit 1,380 34.2

Private, for-profit 511 16.2

Attendance atatua

Full-time 4,200 36.8

Half-time or more 845 54.2

Less than half-time 386 85.3

Age

23 or younger

24-29

30 or older

3,571 38.2

855 44.7

1,004 58.4

Academic level

Contact hour 387 34.4

Freshman 1,727 48.2

Sophomore 1,307 45.4

Junior 892 37.8

Senior 1,118 39.2

Grade point average ~i

2.3 or less 1,115 38.0

2.4-2.8 754 38.5

2.9-3.3 1,016 41.8

3.4-4.0 718 52.7

1/ Details do not add to total becauae of missing values.

~/ Pertaina to credit-hour undergraduates only.

NOTE: Percentages are based on unduplicated counts of aided under raduates;

not add to total since each percentage ie based on the number o ! aided unde~~d~tee

with the eelected characteristic. Details of the number of students may not add to

total due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,

1987 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study.

There are other indications that this type of award was distributed more like institutional

or private aid than Federal aid. First, students who attended public institutions were more

likely than others to receive one (table 3.3). Second, students who attended less than

half time were more likely to receive this award than those who attended at least half time

or full time (figure 3.7). Third, aided undergraduates with high grade point averages were

more likely than those with low GPAs to receive these awards. Finally, those in the oldest

age group were more likely to receive this type of award than those in the youngest age

group.

A claim often made is that freshmen are attracted to an institution by the offer of grant

aid. By the time they become seniors, then, they are less likely to receive grant aid.

Weak support for this claim (since the pattern is not consistent across all academic levels)

may be found in table 3.3. It shows that 48 percent of the freshmen received this award,

while 39 percent of the seniors received only grant aid.

21
The grant and loan aid, only, recipients

These recipients made up 28 percent of all aided undergraduates. The full-time

undergraduates among them received an average award of $5,343 (table 3.1 ). Unlike the

grant aid, only, awards which have several sources, the Federal Government is the major

source of loan aid (table 4.1, 4.2, and appendix D). Since loans made up roughly half

of these awards (table 3.2), they are likely to be distributed like the Federal aid, only,

awards. The distribution of the grant and loan aid, only, and the Federal aid, only,

awards have four characteristics in common. First, larger proportions of students with

low family incomes received these two types of awards than students with high family

incomes (table 3.4). Second, those who attended private, for-profit institutions were more

likely than those at the two other types of institutions to receive one or the other of these

awards. Third, aided undergraduates who were enrolled less than half time were less

likely to receive the awards than those enrolled at least half time. Finally, students with

high grade point averages were less likely than those with low GPAs to receive a grant

and loan aid, only, or Federal aid, only, award.

Table 3.4--Aided umdergraduetes emrollad in the fall of 1986 whn were awarded granta

mid bans, only, for the 1986-87 acadsmic year, by selected student mid

institutional characteristic

Grants Grants

Dependency status, Number & loana Selected institutional Number & loans

cost of attendance, (in only and student (in only

and family income thous. ) (percent) characteristic thoua. ) (percen

Total 5,431 27 . 6 Total ,J 1 27 . 6

Dependent students

Low coat:

Low f ami 1 y income

Medium family income

High family income

High cost:

Low family income

Medium family income

Eigh family income

Independent students

LOW coet :

Low family income

Medium family income

High family income

3,367

547

501

357

563

647

752

409

402

494

271

297

186

26.1

20.0

19.8

8.2

43.8

34.8

22.6

30.0

28.3

28.6

9.8

52.7

49.7

27.0

Control of institution

Public

Private, not-for-profit

Private, for-profit

Attendance status

Full-time

Half-time or more

Leaa than half-time

Age

23 or younger

24-29

30 or older

Grade point average ZI

2.3 or less

2.4-2.8

2.9-3.3

3.4-4.0

3,540 21.9

1,380 32.3

511 54.9

4,200 31.3

845 20.8

386 2.5

3,571 29.0

855 28.2

1,004 22.2

1,115 29.2

754 28.9

1,016 27.0

718 20.7

Eigh coat:

Low family income

Medium family income

High family income

1/ Details do not add to total because of missing values.

~/ Pertains to credit-hour undergraduates only.

NOTE: Percentage are baaed on unduplicated counts of aided under raduates; they do

not add to total since each percentage ia baaed on the number o ~ aided undergraduates

with the selected characteristic. Details of the number of students may not add to

total due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,

1987 National Posts econdary Student Aid Study.

22
The loan aid, only, recipients

Fourteen percent of all aided undergraduates received these awards. The average

amount was $2,793 for full-time undergraduates (table 3.1 ). The primary source of loan

aid was the Federal Government (table 4.1, 4.2, and appendix D). According to some

analysts, 8 the purpose of loans, and particularly Federal loans, was to increase the

choices of institutions a student could attend. Students with low family incomes who

chose to attend a high cost institution were expected to supplement their grants with

loans in order to attend high cost institutions. Students with greater family incomes were

expected to supplement their family support with loans to attend high cost institutions.

Therefore, the loan, only, award, would be given to aided undergraduates at high cost

schools. The data in table 3.5 suggest that this may be the case, at least for independent

students. Since this type of award was likely to be composed mostly of Federal aid, it

is not surprising to find that students who attended private, for-profit institutions were

most likely to receive one and that full-time and half-time or more students were more

likely to receive loan, only, awards than those who attended less than half time.

Table 3. 5--Aided under raduates enrolled in the f 811 of 1986 vim were awarded loan aid,

nmly, for t %e 1986-87 ● cademic year, by selected student ● nd institutional

characteristic

Dependency status, Number Loan Selected institutional

cost of attendance, (in

Number Loan

aid only and student (in aid only

and family income thous. ) (percent) characteristic thous. ) (percent)

Total 5, 31 13 . 6 Total 5,431 13 . 6

Dependent atudente

Lov coat:

Low family income

Medium family income

High family income

High cost:

Lov family income

Medium family income

High family income

3,367 15.1 Control of institution

Public

Private, not-for-profit

Private, for-profit

Attendance status

Full-tim e

Half-time or more

Less than half-time

3,540

1,380

511

13.1

9.9

27.3

547

501

357

5.2

17.6

25.6

4,200

845

386

14.3

15.2

2.6

563

647

752

5.1

15.0

23.2

Age

23 or younger

24-29

30 or older

Independent students

Lov coat :

Low family income

Medium family income

High family income

~/ 2,064 11.2 3,571

855

1,004

14.2

14.9

409 10.2

402

494

3.6

10.5

14.7 Grade point average ~/

2.3 or less

2.4-2.8

2.9-3.3

3.6-4.0

1,115

754

1,016

718

16.3

14.0

12.9

10.9

‘if~wcg~iily income

Medium family income

High family income

1/ Details do not add 1 b f missing values.

~1 Pertaina to credit-&~O~der~~~~=t~e only.

NOTE: Percentage are based on unduplicated counte of aided under raduates;

not add to total since each percentage is based on the number o ! aided unde~~%d~tes

vith the selected characteristic. Detaile of the number of etudente may not add to

total due to rounding.

271

297

186

3.4

11.7

29.7

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistic,

1987 National Poatsecondarv Student Aid Study.

8

See, for example, Hartman, 1978.

23
The grants, loans, and work-study aid, only, recipients

Eight percent of allaided undergraduates received this type of award. The average

award for full-time undergraduates, $7,287, was the largest average among the aid

awards characterized by type (table 3.1). Hence, the most likely recipients would be

those whose cost of attendance is greatest. Students at private, not-for-profit institutions

were more likely to receive this type of award than those at other types of institutions

(table 3.6). Since the work-study portion was the smallest component of this award,

making up only one-sixth of the average amount (table 3.2), it may be expected that it

would be distributed in a fashion similar to the grant and loan, only, aid award. The two

awards have three features in common. First, aided undergraduates with low family

incomes were more likely to receive these awards than those with high family incomes.

Second, full-time students were more likely to receive these awards than those in the

other two attendance status categories. Third, undergraduates in the youngest age

category were more likely than those in the oldest to be given one of these awards.

Unlike the grant and loan, only, award, students at private, for-profit institutions were no

more likely than others to receive a combination grant, loan, and work-study aid, only,

award. This is probably due to private, for-profit institutions having limited access to

Federal work-study aid during the 1986-87 school year.

Table 3.6--Aided undergraduates enrolled in the f 811 of 1986 who vere awarded grant a,

loam, ● nd work-study mid, only, for the 1986-87 acadedc year, by selected

otudemt ● rid lnst%tuttomal characteristic

Grants,

loans,

Grants,

loans,

Dependency status, Number & v-a Selected inetitutionsl Number & v-e

cost of attendance, (in and student

thous. ) ( p%~nt )

(in only

and family income characteristic thous. ) ( percent)

Total 5,431 7.7

Dependent students 3,367 9.6

Lov coet:

Low family income 547 5.9

Ffedium family income 501 Ii. ?

High family income 357 1.0

‘il%c:%ly income 563 15.9

Hedium family income 647 17.1

High family income 752 8.6

Independent etudents ~/ 2,064 4.6

Low cost:

Lov family income 409 6.3

Hedium family income 402 3.4

High family income 49.i 0.4

High cost :

Lov family income 271 10.4

Medium family income 297 6.6

High family income 186 2.6

Total 5,431 . 7

Control of institution

Public 3,540 5.5

Private, not-for-profit 1,380 15.8

Private, for-profit 511 0.7

Attendance statua

Full-time 4,260 9.4

Half-time or more 845 2.6

Lese than half-time 386 0.0

Age

23 or younger 3,571 10.0

24-29 855

30 or older 1,004 :::

Grade point average ~1

2.3 or lese 1,115

2.4-2.8

9.2

754 9.7

2.9-3.3 1,016 9.3

3.4-4.0 718 5.7

1/ Detaila d dd 1 b f miesing values.

~1 Pertaine ~on~~e~it-~u~~der~~~~=t~e only.

NOTE: Percentage are based on unduplicated counts of aided under raduatee; they do

not add to total eince each percentage ie baeed on the number o ! aided undergraduate

with the eelected characteristic. Detaile of the number of students may not add to

total due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,

19S7 National Poetaecondary Student Aid Study.

24
I

The grants @work-study aid, only, recipients

Among all aided undergraduates, 4 percent received this type of award. On average,

this award was worth $4,583 (table 3.1 ). Aided undergraduates who attended low cost

institutions, and were from families with low family incomes were more likely to receive this

award than those with high family incomes (table 3.7). Those who attended public or a

private, not-for-profit institutions were more likely to receive this award than those who

attended private, for-profit institutions. With respect to other student characteristics (such

as attendance status, age, and grade point average), this type of award was fairly evenly

distributed.

Table 3.7--tided undergradueteo enrolled in the f 811 of 1986 who were awarded grant auf

wrk-otudy aid, nmly, for the 1986-87 academic year, by selected student and

institutional cbarscteristic

Dependency status, Number Grant & Selectedal institution Number

cost of attendance,

Grant &

(in - and student

thous. ) ~p~r%~)

(in v-s only

and family income characteristic thous. ) (percent)

Total 5,431 4.5

I

Total 5,431 4.5

Dependent etudente

Low cost:

Low family income

Medium family income

High family income

‘if!wc;~~ily income

Medium family income

High family income

Independent student e

LOW coet:

Lov family income

Medium family income

Eigh family income

3,367

547

501

357

563

647

752

409

402

694

4.5 Control of institution

Public 3,540

8.0 Private, not-for-profit 1,380

3.4 Private, for-profit 511

3.1

Attendance status

Full-time 4,200

4.8 Half-time or more 845

3.9 Less than half-time 386

3.6

Age

4.5 23 or younger 3,571

24-29 855

8.4 30 or older 1,004

5.1

2.3 Grade point average ~1

2.3 or less 1,115

2.4-2.8 754

4.4 2.9-3.3 1,016

3.9 3.4-4.0 718

1.2

5.2

4.3

0.3

4.9

2.9

3.0

4.7

4.8

3.5

271

297

186

High cost:

Lov family income

Medium family income

High family income

11 Details do not add 1 b f missing values.

~1 Pertains to credit.%”~der~~~~~~tzs only.

NOTE: Percentages are based on unduplicated counts of aided under raduatee;

not add to total since each percentage is based on the number o ! aided unde~~%d~tes

vith the eelected characteristic. Details of the number of students may not add to

total due to rounding.

5.4

5.1

4.5

5.3

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,

1987 National Posts econdary Student Aid Study.

25
:

Chapter 4: Aid Awards by Source and Type of Aid

Background

In this chapter, the 65 aid programs on which NPSAS collected information are placed

into one of eight groups or components. Some of them consist of a single aid program,

such as a guaranteed student loan (GSL) or Pen Grant. Other components consist of a

large number of programs that are homogeneous with respect to source and type of aid

(e.g., institutional grants or private grants). Aided undergraduates could receive one

component or more than one aid component. For example, some undergraduates

received GSLS, alone, while others received them in combination with Pen Grants. In the

discussion which follows, all students who received GSLs, for example, are said to receive

a GSL component. Those who received it alone are said to receive a GSL award. Lastly,

those who received GSLS along with aid from one or more of the other eight components

are said to have a GSL component in their aid awards. Theoretically, a total of 255 aid

awards could be constructed from the eight aid components.

Characterizing aid awards by both source and type of aid involves a substantial

amount of personal judgment. The method used here attempts to achieve the following

objectives:

● to describe the interaction of the two major Federal aid programs, Pen and GSL,

with other Federal and non-Federal programs;

● to show the relative proportion of undergraduate aid stemming from each of the

four sources (Federal, State, institutional, private);

● to distinguish between grant aid and self-help (loans and work-study) aid;

● to combine aid programs into separate components with similar financial aid

characteristics; and

● to equalize

component,

If

the percentages of aided

for comparison’s sake.

undergraduates participating in each

The result is an eight component classification scheme. The eight components are:

● GSL (Guaranteed Student Loans, recently renamed Stafford Loans);

● Pen Grants:

27

,.

.
. OFG, (Other Federal Grants--e. g., SEOGS, SSIGS);

. OFSH (Other Federal Self-Help--e. g., NDSL or Perkins Loans, College Work-Study,

PLUS, SLS);

. State Grants;

. Institutional Grants;

. NFSH (Non-Federal Self-Help--e. g., State and institutional loans and work-study);

and

. Private Grants.

Two categories of aid were excluded from this scheme: the very small private self-help

awards; and aid for which there was no identifiable source. The largest proportion of aid

with no identifiable source was reported by aid recipients who said they received grants

but did not specify the source of the grants on the NPSAS student survey response form.

Of the 255 possible packages which could result from the various combinations of

these eight aid components, 251 actually emerge. And of these, only a small fraction

were actually awarded in numbers amounting to more than 2 percent of the aided

undergraduate population. (See appendix D for a listing of all 251 aid awards along with

the percentages of aided undergraduates who received them, and the average amounts

they were awarded).

In this chapter, there are detailed tables on 9 of the 251 awards (discussion is limited

to 6). These 9 awards are among the most commonly held financial aid awards.

Together, they represent the awards received by one-half of all aided undergraduates.

(The awards are listed in table 4.1, ranked in order of the percentages who received

them).

28
Table 4.1 --Aided uodergraduatee enrolled in the f ● ll of 1986 who were avarded aid

for the 1986-87 ● cademic year aid average ● id award, by aid ● ward

f

Aid

Average award

Aided full-time aide~r

award undergraduates undergraduates

All aided undergraduatea (i n thousands) 5,431 NA

Total

Percent

51.3

Institutional rant only

f

11.4 $1,835

Guaranteed Stu ent Loan (GSL) only 10.7 2,587

Private grant only 7.6 1,658

GSL and Pen Grant only 5.8 4,904

Pen Grant only 4.7 1,554

Pen, other Federal granta, State granta (POS) only 3.6 3,076

Other Federal grants (OFG) only 3.1 3,090

State grants only 2.4 995

GSL, Pen, other Federal granta, State grants

(CPOS) only 2.0 5,270

NA Not applicable.

NO+E : Percentages are based on unduplicated counts of aided undergraduates.

SOURCE : U.S. De artment of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,

1987 National Eostsecondarv Student Aid Studv.

Figure 4.1--Average amount of aid

awarded, by aid award

Aid award

GSL, Pen, OFG,St

GSL &Pell Grants

Other Federal Grants

Pen, OFG, State Gts

GSL

Institutional Gran

Private Gran

Pen Gran

s

s

s

State Grants

SOURCE: The 1987

Student Aid Study

$0 $1 $2 $3 $4 $5 $6

Average

Natlonel Posts econdery

29

amount (thousands)
How the components of aid awards were combined

Because this chapter is somewhat more complex than the previous chapters, and

because the initial tables have an unfamiliar format, it is useful to discuss the structure of

tables 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4 in greater detail at this point, As in previous chapters, table 4.1

lists the most commonly held aid awardsg and their average amounts for full-time

students. Since these nine awards are held by one-half of all aided undergraduates and

represent only a fraction (9 out of 251) of all the different types of aid awards made,

tables 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4 are presented in an effort to summarize how the eight

components were combined to produce the remaining 242 (251 minus 9) awards.

Table 4. z.-tided under raduetee who received aid

com ‘“T-’”e ioa t ion‘ywith‘h-se’’” all other “daid component ‘“ t

Aid With

award By other aid

component itself components Total

I

(percent )

GSL

Pen Grants

Institutional grante

Other Federal ~rants

10 7

4:7

30 8 5

31:4

41

36:1

11.4 20.0 31.4

3.1 27.8 30.9

::; 26.7 29.1

18.0 19.1

7.6 8.1 15.7

1.1 8.5 9.6

E . . Department of Ed i National

Cent& for Education Statiet~:~ ;k7 National

Postsecondary Student Aid Study.

Table 4.2 provides the percentage of aided undergraduates who received an aid

component by itself (i.e., as the sole component in the aid award) and in combination

with other aid components (i.e., as one of two or more aid components in the aid award).

In the last column, the total proportion of aided undergraduates who received a given

component is reported. For example, in table 4.2 we find that 10.7 percent of aided

undergraduates received the GSL component, alone, as the sole component in their aid

award. Nearly 31 percent (30.8) of aided undergraduates who received this component

combined it with other aid components. The sum of these two figures, 41.5 percent,

represents the proportion of aided undergraduates who received the GSL component.

9

One aid award, the non-Federal self-help, award has been omitted from the table since it is a

combination of a variety of many different programs, and acts more as a residual, or catch-all, than

anything else,

30
Table 4. 3--A.fded under raduetes whn received aid components in combination with other

epecific aif CCmpOnent a

Aid

award

component

GSL

Pen Grants

Other Federal rants

Other Federal sel! -help

State grante

Institutional rants

Non-Federal sel! -help

Percentage of etudents receiving aid award component

Other R

Other Fd:;al Fe%&al

Federal . State Instit. self- Private

Pen grante help grante grante help grante

17 . 1* 13 3 10 1 12 0 10 4 3 0 3 4

. . . . . 16:h 10:4 15:9 7:5 2:2 3:2

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.6 19.5 8.4 2.2 3.1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3 7.7 1.8 2.3

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.5 2.1 3.2

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4 3.9

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1

* The f igure of 17.1 for the Pen GSL combina t ion is the percentage of aided

undergraduate who received bot~ a Pen and a GSL, only, or theee two components in

combination with other award components.

SOURCE: Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, ~

National Posteecondarv Student Aid Study.

Table 4.3 gives the proportion of aided undergraduates who received two or more

components, combined together, to produce an aid award. For example, from table 4.2

we found that 30.8 percent of GSL recipients also received some other aid component

in their aid award. From table 4.3, we find that 17.1 percent of aided undergraduates, a

part of the 30.8 percent, received a combination of GSL and Pen, either separately or with

other components in their aid award. Finally, from table 4.4 we find that 5.9 percent of

aided undergraduates received the GSL and Pen components, combined, as the only two

components in their aid award. Hence, of the 30.8 percent (table 4.2) who received a

GSL combined with other components, 17.1 percent (table 4.3) of aided undergraduates

received the GSL combined with a Pen and other components; and 5.9 percent (table

4.4) of aided

award. The

percent.

undergraduates received the GSL and Pen components, only, in their aid

5.9 percent is part of the 17.1 percent which in turn is part of the 30.8

Table 4.4 --tided undergraduate who received an aid component in combination with only one other

aid ccmponent

Percentage of students receiving aid avard component e

Other NonAid Other Federal Federal

award Fed era 1 9elf - State Instit. self- Private

component (XL Pen grants help grante grants help grants

GSL 11 . 0 5 9* 1 0 1 0 0 7 1 9 0 6 0 6

Pen Grants . . . . . 4:8 0:7 0:9 1:3 0:6 0:2 0:4

Other Federal rants

!

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4 0.3 2.0 0.4 0.2 0.3

Other Federal sel -help . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.1

State grante . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6 0.8 0.1 0.2

Institutional rsnte

!

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.4 0.9 1.1

Non-Federal sel -help . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6 0.2

Private grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.8

* Th fi f 5 9 f h GSL P 11 bi i is the percentage of sided

un;erg%a~ee ~ho ;~c~i~ed a‘ Pe;l G;~~t % ~nGSL, only, aid award.

SOURCE: U.S. De artment of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,

1987 Nationa! Poetsecondar~ Student Aid Stud~.

31
The GSL component

Over 40 percent of aided undergraduates received a GSL component, making this

component one of the most commonly awarded among aided undergraduates (table 4.2).

Eleven percent of aided undergraduates received the GSL component by itself (for an

average aid award of $2,587). ‘ 0 Seventeen percent of aided undergraduates who

received a GSL also received a Pen Grant, but only 3 percent of aided undergraduates

received a GSL and private grant together.

The Pen Grant component

Slightly more than 36 percent of aided undergraduates received the Pen Grant

component (table 4.2). Roughly one-third of aided undergraduates received the Pen

Grant in combination with other aid awards. Only 5 percent of aided undergraduates

depended on a Pen Grant, alone, for their financial aid. For them, the average award was

$1,554 (table 4.1 ). Pen Grants were as likely to be combined with the other Federal

grants component as with State grants. Sixteen percent of aided undergraduates

received a Pelt and another Federal grant, together, and 16 percent received a Pen and

a State grant combination (table 4.3).

The GSL and Pen Grant combined component

I

A total of 17 percent of aided undergraduates received an aid award that included both

a GSL and a Pen grant (table 4.3). Six percent of them received the GSL and Pen Grant,

alone, for an average award of $4,904 (tables 4.1 and 4.4). Seven percent of aided

undergraduates were awarded the GSL and Pen combination along with the other Federal

grant component or the State grants component; 5 percent with the other Federal selfhelp component; and 1 percent with either the private grantor the non-Federai, self-help

components (table 4.5).

,.

10 Prior to January 1, 1987, the maximum annual GSL award was $2,500. Subsequently,

undergraduates who had not completed two years of study could borrow up to $2,650 annually through

the GSL program. Undergraduates who completed at least two years of study could borrow up to $4,000

annually through the program,

32
Table 4. 5--Aided undergraduates who received

cmbioationt? of Pen and GSL vith

other aid components*

d

award

~

component

‘ei f

e gure 7. repreeenta the percents e o

aided undergraduates vho received a Pe! 1 Grant,

GSL, other Federal granta and other

award component.

SOURCE I U, S. Department of Education, National

Center for Education Statiatice, 19S7

National Posts econdary Student Ai=udv.

Other Federal aid components

The two remaining Federal aid components--other Federal grants (OFG) and other

Federal self-help (OFSH)--are combinations of smaller Federal aid programs, programs

too small to be analyzed by themselves in this report. The other Federal grants

component consists mainly of the Supplemental Education Opportunity Grant (SEOG)

program and the State Student Incentive Grant (SSIG) pi.ogram. The other Federal selfhelp component consists primarily of the National Direct Student Loan (NDSL) program

and the College Work-study program but also includes Parental Loans to Undergraduate

Students (PLUS) and Supplemental Loans to Students (SLS) program.

The other Federal grants component was awarded to 3 percent of aided

undergraduates (table 4.2). Sixteen percent of aided undergraduates received a financial

aid package combining Pen with the other Federal grants component. Furthermore, 13

and 20 percent of them, respectively, received one combined with a GSL and a State

grant (table 4.3). However, only 8 and 3 percent received the other Federal grants

component combined with institutional and private grants, respectively (table 4.3). The

total average award amount for those who received one or more of the grants in this

component was $3,090 (table 4.1 ).

A total of 19 percent (table 4.2) of aided undergraduates received the other Federal

self-help component (which consisted of Federal work-study or a Federal loan, other than

a GSL). The other Federal self-help component was almost always combined with other

components (table 4.2). Eighteen percent received financial aid under this category in

combination with another aid component. These work-study and Federal loan amounts

stood an equal chance of being combined with a GSL, a Pen, or the other Federal grants

component (table 4.3).

33
“y”

Non-Federal aid components

With reference to the four non-Federal aid components (State grants, institutional

grants, private grants, and non-Federal self-help) 29 and 31 percent of recipients,

respectively, were awarded funding under the State grant and institutional grant

components. Ten and 16 percent, respectively, received the non-Federal self-help and

private grant components (table 4.2). The State grant component was frequently

combined with the other aid components (27 percent received State grants in

combination with another component) while the non-Federal self-help and private grants

(table 4.2) were infrequently combined with another component (8 percent, each).

Characteristks of recipients

The GSL, only, recipients

Eleven percent of aided undergraduates held the Guaranteed Student Loan, only,

award (table 4.1 ), receiving an average of $2,587 (table 4.1). As noted previously in the

discussion on loans as a type of aid, GSLS were originally designed to increase students’

choices of institutions. For low income students who received a grant and thereby made

it possible to attend public institutions, the GSL could have provided sufficient additional

funds to permit them to attend private institutions if they so chose. ‘‘ The GSL program

was also designed to assist relatively well-off students who relied on family support

instead of a grant so they could borrow enough to expand the number of institutions they

could choose to attend.

11 See, for example, Hartman, 1978,

34
Table 4.6--Aided modergrsduatea emrolhd in the fall of 1986 who were amerded

guaranteed etudemt loeme, om.ly, for the 1986-87 academic year. by selected

● tudent ● md inetitutiomel cherecteri*tic

Dependency gtatus, Number GSL Selected institutional Number GSL

coet of attendance, (in only and e tudent (in only

and family income thous . ) (percent ) characteristic thous. ) (percent)

Total 5,431 10 . 7 Total 5,431 10 . 7

Dependent students 3,367 11.8 Control of institution

Low cost: Public 3,540 10.2

Low family income 547 Private, not-for-profit 1 ,;;~ 7.8

Medium family income 501 12:: Private, for-profit 22.1

High family income 357 18.1

Attendance statua

“I%CWIY income

Full-time 4,200 11.3

563 4.1 Half-time or more 845 12.5

33ed ium family income 647 12.2 Leea then half-time 386 0.0

High family income 752 17.9

Age

Independent students ~1 2,06b 8.9 23 or younger 3,571 11.3

Low cost: 2.4-29 855 11.1

Low family income 409 3.0 30 or older 1,004 8.0

Medium family income 402 8.9

High family income 494 11.3 Grade point average ZI

2.3 or less 1,115 11.4

High coet: 2.4-2.8 754 10.7

Low family income 271 2.6 2.9-3.3 1,016 10.1

Medium family income 297 9.3 3.4-4.0 718 8.2

High family income 186 23.3

1/ Details do not add to total becauae o f missing valuee.

~1 Pertaina to credit-hour undergraduate only.

NOTE: Percentages are baeed on unduplicated counts of aided under raduates; they do

not add to total since each percentage is based on the number o ! aided undergraduates

with the selected characteristic. Details of the number of atudenta may not add to

total due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,

1987 National Postsecondarv Student Aid Stud~.

As table 4.6 indicates, aided undergraduates with high family incomes were more likely

to receive a GSL than were those with low family incomes. Additionally, aided

undergraduates who attended the more expensive private, for-profit institutions were more

likely to have a GSL, only, award than those who attended the less expensive public

institutions (table 4.6). Because of the attendance requirement associated with a GSL,

only students attending full time or half time or more received this award. GSLS were

evenly distributed across age groups. Among credit-hour students, freshmen were as

likely to receive this award as seniors (not in table). Furthermore, students with low and

high GPAs were equally likely to receive this award (the difference in the two percentages

is not statistically significant).

The Pen Grant, only, recipients

The 5 percent of all aided undergraduates who received only a Pen Grant were given

an average amount of $1,554 (table 4.1). The data in table 4.7 indicate that aided

undergraduates from low income families were more likely to receive a Pen Grant than

those from high income families. This is to be expected. The Pen Grant program makes

awards on the basis of applicants’ financial resources and the cost of attendance. For

a given cost of attendance, Pen awards are generally inversely related to family financial

capacity. Aided undergraduates who attended public or private, for-profit institutions

were more likely to receive one than those who attended private, not-for-profit institutions.

35
This may be because Pen Grant, only, recipients could more easily cover the cost of a

public institution (or even a private, for-profit institution) than the cost of a private, not-forprofit institution.

Less than half-time students were not eligible to receive Pen Grants. Distribution was

equal among age groups. Among credit-hour students, Pelt Grants were as likely to be

awarded to freshmen as to seniors; and to students with low GPAs as well as those with

high GPAs.

The distributions of recipients of Pelt Grant, only, awards and grants, only, awards

(tables 4.7 and 3.3, respectively) differ on several dimensions. Those include family

income, control of institution, attendance status, age, academic level, and grade point

average. Clearly, the distribution of the grants, only, award does not depict the

distribution of the Pen Grant, only, award.

I

Table 4. Z--Aided undergrad~tes enrolled in the fall of 1986 who were awarded Pen

Grant a, only, for the 1986-87 academic year, by aelceted etudent and

imetitutiooal characteristic

P 11

Dependency status, Number

Pen

g;ant Selected institutional Number aid

cost of attendance, (in only and student (in only

and family income thous. ) (percent) characteristic thous. ) (percent)

local Total 5,431 4 . 7

Dependent students

Low coat:

Lov family income

Medium family income

High family income

Iiigh coat:

Low family income

Medium family income

Eigh family income

Independent students

Lov cost:

Low family income

Medium family income

High family income

High cost :

Lov family income

lfed ium family income

High family income

5,431 6.7

3,367 3.3 Control of institution

6.3

0.8

4.1

Public 3,540

547 11.2 Private. not- for-mofit 1.380

2.6

0.6

501

357

Private: for-prof~t -511

Attendance status

Full-time 4,200

Half-time or more 845

Less than half-time 386

4.5

7.8

0.0

563

647

752

6.7

1.2

0.0

Age

23 or younger 3,571

24-29 855

30 or older 1,004

~1 2,064 7.0 4.1

7.0

409 4.9

402

494

14.7

10.4

1.5 Academic level

Contact hour 387

Freshman 1,727

Sophomore 1,307

Junior 892

Senior 1,118

8.4

5.4

5.0

3.0

3.4

271

297

186

7.2

.4.9

1.0

Grade point average ~\

2.3 or less 1,115 5.3

2.4-2.8 754 4.1

2.9-3.3 1,016 4.1

3.4-4.0 718 3.3

NOTE: Petcentagea are based w. unduplicaced counts of aided under raduates; they do

not add to total since each percentage is baaed on the number o ! aided undergraduates

vith the selected characteristic. Details of the number of students may not add to

total due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,

1987 National Postsecondarv Student Aid Study.

36
The GSL and Pen Grant, only, recipients

Six percent of aided undergraduates received this combination of financial aid. The fulltime undergraduates among them received an average amount of $4,9o4 (table 4.1 ). The

distribution of this type of award (table 4.8) across income brackets was similar to that

of the pen Grant, only, award (table 4.7) in the sense that low family income students

were more likely to be awarded one than high family income students. By far the most

likely recipients of this award were those who attended private, for-profit institutions.

Thirty-one percent of aided students at these institutions received a combination GSL and

Pen Grant, only, award, while only 4 and 2, percent respectively, of the students at public

and private, not-for-profit institutions received one (table 4.8). The receipt of this award,

by attendance status, reflects the eligibility requirements associated with both the Pen and

GSL programs. Younger students (table 4.8) were as likely to receive one as older

students, as were those with low and high grade point averages (i.e., the differences are

not statistically significant).

Table 4 .8--Afded umdergraduatem enrolled in the fall of 1986 who were ● mrded GSL amd

Pen Grante, ody, for the 1986-87 academic year, by eelected student ● d

iastitutiomel cbaracterietic

;: Xl& CSL &

Dependency status, Number Selected institutional Number aid

cent of attendance, (in only and student (in only

and family income thous . ) (percent ) characteristic thous. ) (percent)

Total 5,431 . 8 Total 59431 . 8

Dependent atudenta 3,367 3.9 Control of institution

Low cost: Public 3,540 3.8

Lov family income 547 6.3 Private, not-for-profit 1,;;; 1.6

Medium family income 501 2.3 Private, for-profit 30.7

High family income 357 0.1

Attendance statue

High cost: Full-time 4,200 6.3

Lov family income 563 12.5 Half-time or more 845 6.0

Medium family income 647 1.9 Less than half-time 386 0.0

High family income 752 0.1

A8e

Independent students J./ 2,064 9.0 23 or younger 3,571 5.1

Low cost: 24-29 855 8.6

Lov family income 409 10.6 30 or older 1,004 6.0

tfedium family income 402 7.3

Eigh family income 494 0.7 Grade point average ~1

2.3 or less 1,115 6.3

High cost: 2.4-2.8 754 4.2

Low family income 271 18.9 2.9-3.3 1,016 3.9

Hedium family income 297 17.8 3.4-4.0 718 3.1

High family income 186 2.5

1/ Details do not add to total because of missing values.

~1 Pertains to credit-hour undergraduates only.

NOTE: Percentages are based on unduplicated counts of aided under raduates; they do

not add to total since each percentage is based on the number o ! aided undergraduates

with the selected characteristic. Details of the number of students may not add to

total due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,

1987 National Postsecondarv Student Aid Study.

The GSL and Pen Grant, only, award distribution was similar to that for the grants and

loans, only, awards discussed in chapter Ill (table 3.4). However, students at private, forprofit institutions were much more likely to receive the combination Pen and GSL, only,

37
award than students at the other institutions (table 4.8). The differences in proportions

were less pronounced among the institutional types for the grants and loans, only, award.

Despite the fact that the combined GSL and Pen, only, award was distributed across

income ranges in a pattern similar to the Pelt, only, award, the GSL portion was the larger

component.

percent was

For the average GSL and Pen, only, package, 60 percent was GSL and 40

Pen Grant (table 4.9).

Tablo 4.9--Cmpd$tition of chrm mltiplo-compamnt aid ● ward@ ● ward-d to full-tima undmgrsduataa ● rollod in tha fall of

1986 who wars ● warded ● id for tho 1986-.7 ● cademic year ● id ● vorqc ● id ● ward, by -id *ward and control of

institution

P 11 h Td 1 CSL P 11 h ~d I

CSL aIW2 Poll grants: ● R ;A”:os) grak ~ •&~i &nL”RPOS)

P*rcmtt P*rc*ut Percent

Control Other

of AveraKm

Othm

Avmagw hdard stat*

institution

Average

● munt ●

Fodaral state

CSL P*11 ● mount* P*11 grmta grante ● mOunt* CSL Pall srmm Brmlt,

fetal W , 904 59 . 40 . 3 S3 ● 076 54 . . 3s .

control

Public 4,010 60.9 39.0 2,720 57.6 7.2 35.1

?rivat~, not-for-profit

4,728 47.6 33.1 3.1 16.1

4,602 58.5 41.3 4,249 44.2 5.1

Private. for-profit 5,760 S9. O

50.7

40.9

6,419 37.6 28.5 4.4 29.3

4,574 54.5 5.8 39.7 6,936 40.7 30.5 3.7 25.1

3 TIM SV*T*SC ● uomta ● re tOr Aided ful l-tire undergraduate.

140TII Porcontagec arc kced on .mdupllcstcd counts of ● ided undergraduates.

SOURCE , U. S. Department of Education, Caoccr for Education 

.

Ststiaticc, !

38
The institutional grant, only, recipients

Eleven percent of aided undergraduates were awarded this type of financial assistance.

The full-time undergraduates among them received amounts averaging slightly less than

$2,000 (table 4.1 ). Aided undergraduates with high family incomes were more likely to

receive this award than those with low family incomes (table 4.10). The award was also

more likely to go to dependent students (14 percent) than independent students (8

percent). Two percent of aided undergraduates at private, for-profit institutions received

an institutional grant, while 12 and 13 percent of those at public and at private, not-forprofit institutions, respectively, received one. Those aided undergraduates attending full

time were less likely to receive an institutional grant than those attending on a less than

half-time basis (1 O percent versus 26 percent, respectively). The youngest age group

was as likely to receive the award as the oldest. Among credit-hour students, those with

the highest grade point averages (15 percent) were more likely to receive this award than

those with the lowest GPAs (9 percent).

Table 4. 10--Aided undergraduetee enrolled in the fall of 19s6 who were ● warded

institutional grant ● id, omly, for the 1986-87 academic year, by selected

● tudent and institutional character atic

Instit. Instit.

DeDendencv . . status. Number srants Selected institutional Number arants

coat of attendance, (in “only and student (in ‘only

and family income thoua. ) ( percent) characteristic thous. ) (percent)

Total 5,431 11 .

I

Total 5,431 11.4

Dependent students 3,367 13.8

Low cost:

LOW family income 547 11.2

Medium family income 501 17.6

High family income 357 28.1

High COSt:

Lov family income 563 4.3

Medium family income 647 7.6

Eigh family income 752 18.7

Independent students ~/ 2,064 7.6

Low cost :

Lov family income 409 6.0

Medium family income &oz 7.4

High family income 494 14.2

High cost:

Low family income 271 2.6

Medium family income 297 2.1

High family income 186 10.1

Control of institution

Public

Private, not-for-profit

Private, for-profit

Attendance status

Full-time

Half-time or mnre

Less than half-time

Age

’23 or younger

24-29

30 or older

Grade point average ~1

2.3 or less

2.4-2.8

2.9-3.3

3.4-4.0

3,540

1,380

511

4,200

845

386

3,571

855

1, Oofi

1,115

754

1,016

718

12.7

11.7

1.8

10.0

11.9

26.2

12.2

8.3

11.3

8.9

1::;

14.9

1/ Details do not add to total because of missing values.

~1 Pertains to credit-hour undergraduates only.

NOTE: Percentages are based on unduplicated counts of aided under raduates: they do

not add to total since each percentage is based on the number o ! aided undergraduates

with the selected characteristic. Details of the number of students may not add to

total due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,

1987 National Posts econdarv Student Aid Study.

39
r

The distribution of institutional grant awards across the spectrum of such student

characteristics as family income, grade point average, control of institution, and

attendance status was similar to that of the grants, only, awards. On the other hand, the

two distributions differed on the basis of age (tables 4.10 and 3.3).

The POS, only, recipients

Recipients of the Pen Grant, other Federal grant, and State grant, only, aid award

(POS) amounted to 4 percent of aided undergraduates. Their awards for full-time

undergraduates averaged slightly over $3,000 (table 4.1 ). Aided undergraduates from

low income families were more likely to receive this type of financial aid package, (table

4.1 1) than those from high income families, possibly reflecting the importance of the Pen

Grant component, which represented 55 percent of this award combination (table 4.9).

Approximately the same proportion of aided undergraduates at each type of institution

received this type of award (4 percent of public; 3 percent private, for-profit; and 2

percent for private, not-for-profit aided undergraduates).

Table 4.11 --tided umdergreduatea emrolled in the fall of 1986 who were avarded a

combimetiom of ?ell, other Federal grante, sod State grants for the 19S6-S7

acadtic per, by eelected studmt ● md Imetitutiomel characteristic

Pen. OFG. 1 Pen. OFG.

Stiite - Stite v

Dependency statue, Number

thou.. ) (P!?z

Selected institutional Number

coat of attendance, (in

~;~;e

and e tudent (in

and family income characteristic chous. ) (percent)

3,367

547

501

357

563

647

752

2.9

9.1

2.b

0.1

5.1

:::

Total 5,431 3.6

I

Total 5*431 3.6

Dependent atudente

Lov coat:

Lov family income

Medium family income

Eigh family income

‘i!%c~~~ily income

Medium family income

High family income

~/ 2,064

409

402

494

271

297

186

4.7

7.8

7.3

0.3

5.6

5.4

1.1

Control of inatitutfon

Public

Private, not-for-profit

Private, for-profit

Attendance statue

Full-time

Half-time or more

Lees than half-time

Age

23 or younger

24-29

30 or older

Grade point average ~1

2.3 or lees

2.4-2.8

2.9-3.3

3.4-4.0

3,540

1,380

511

4,200

845

386

4.4

1.7

2.7

3.7

4.3

0.0

3,571

855

1,004

3.1

3.5

5.1

Independent etudente

Lov cost:

Low family income

Ued ium family income

High family income

Eigh cost:

LOV family income

Medium family income

Eigh family income

1/ D 1 d dd 1 b f miseing valuee.

~\ P%t~i& ~on~~e~it-zu~o~der~~z~~t~s only.

NOTEs Percentages are based on unduplicated counts of aided under raduatee; they do

not add to total eince each percentage ie based on the number o ! aided undergraduate

vith the selected characteristic.

total due to rounding.

Details of the number of studente may not add to

1,115

754

1,016

718

4.6

3.9

2.3

2.1

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistic,

~987 National Poeteecondarv Student Aid Study.

40
. .

The POS award is made up of three, separate grant components. As a result, it’s one

of the awards that make up the grants, only, award decribed in chapter Ill, thus allowing

for comparison of their respective distribution. It turns out they have little in common.

They differ on the basis of income, control of institution, attendance status, age, and

grade point average (tables 4.11 and 3.3).

The Pen component of the average POS award amounted to 55 percent; the other

Federal grant component, 7 percent (table 4.9). It is not surprising that this type of award

was distributed across income groups in a manner similar to the Pen, only, award.

The private grant, only, recipients

As has been noted, private sources supplied the smallest amount of aid of any of the

four sources (table 2.1 ), However, because private aid was infrequently combined with

other aid components (table 4.2), the private grant, only, award was held by a relatively

sizeable proportion of individuals, when compared with other single component aid

awards. Eight percent of aided undergraduates received this award. The full-time aided

undergraduates among them received an average amount of $1,658 (table 4.1). The

private grants, only, award was distributed across income brackets in the same way that

the institution grants, only, award was distributed (table 4.1 O). Students from low income

families were less likely to receive this award than those from high income families (table

4.1 2). Similar to the institution grants, only, award, students at public and private, not-forprofit institutions were more likely to receive this award than those at private, for-profit

institutions (table 4.12). Older students were more likely to receive this award than

younger students, students going less than half time were more likely to receive this

award than those going full time, and aided undergraduates with a high rather than a low

grade point average were more likely to receive this award (table 4.12).

When the distribution of the private grants, only, award is compared with that of the

grants, only, award of chapter Ill (table 3.3), some of its unique characteristics can be

seen. For example, a large proportion of grants, only, recipients were less than half-time

students. They were also the students in the oldest age groups and the students with

the highest grade point averages.

41
Table 4. 12--Aided umdergmduates emrolled in the f ● ll of 1986 who were ● werded private

ysrsy, mmly, for the 1986-87 ● cademic yeer, by ● elected student mad

tutionel cheracterletic

Private

Dependency status, Number grants

Private

Selected institutional Number

cost of attendance, (in

aid

only and student (in

and family income

only

thous. ) (percent ) characteristic thous. ) (percent)

5,431

3,367

547

501

357

563

647

752

Total 7.6 Total 5,431 .

Dependent students 5.2 Control of institution

Low cost : Public

Lov family income 5.8

3,540 8.8

Private,

Medium f am%ly income

not-for-profit

7.8

1,380 6.5

High family income

Private, for-profit

2.3

511 1.8

Attendance status

‘igw::;::i=ome

Full-time

1.3

4,200 3.5

Half-time or more

2.5

845 12.1

Less than half-time

High family income 4.7

3S6 41.9

Independent a tudents

Low cost :

LOW family income

lied ium family income

High family income

Age

~/ 2,064 11.5 23 or younger 3,571 4.0

24-29

409 4.2

855 9.9

30 or older

402 4.7

1,004 18.2

494 34.1 Grade point average ~/

2.3 or less 1,115 4.9

Eigh coat: 2.4-2.8 754 5.1

Lov family income 271 1.7 I

2.9-3.3

Medium family income 297 2.1 3.4-4.0

High family income 186 11.4

1,016

718 1;::

NOTE: Percentages are based on unduplicated counts of aided under raduatea; they do

not add to total since each percentage ia baaed on the number o ! aided under~raduatea

vith the selected characteristic. Detaile of the number of studente may not add to

total due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Educat%on Statistics,

1987 National Postsecondarv Student Aid study.

42
Chapter V Summary

This reporl is concerned with two aspects of undergraduate student financial aid

awards. First, and foremost, it discussed the financial aid awards that undergraduates,

enrolled in the fall of 1986, received. Second, the report explored methodology; that is,

how to present a coherent and comprehensive view of the many different combinations

of financial aid awards that undergraduates receive. The findings are summarized, by

topic, in the discussion that follows.

Aid awards

Aid awards by source of aid

There are four sources of student financial aid: Federal, State, institutional, and private.

The Federal Government was found to be the largest supplier of student financial aid,

providing 62 percent of all aid to undergraduates enrolled in the fall of 1986. Institutions

were found to be the second largest suppliers of student financial aid. They provided 21

percent of all aid to these same undergraduates. Undergraduates’ awards were more

likely to consist of aid from a single source rather than multiple sources. Nearly 60

percent of ail aided undergraduates received assistance from only one source, with the

Federal Government being the provider in over half of these cases.

The sources of aid in a student’s award were found to be associated with the type of

institution the student attended, the student’s family income, and his or her attendance

status. For example, students who attended private, for-profit institutions were more likely

to receive packages of Federal aid, alone, than those who attended other types of

institutions. On the other hand, students at public or private, not-for-profit institutions

were more likely to receive awards of institutional or private aid, alone, than those who

attended private, for-profit institutions.

Family income was also associated with the source of aid received. For example,

undergraduates with low family incomes were more likely to receive a Federal aid, oniy,

award than those with high family incomes. High family income students were more likely

than low family income students to receive institutional or private aid, only, awards.

Aided undergraduates who attended school full time were more likely to receive aid

packages consisting of Federal and institutional aid or Federal, State, and institutional aid

than those undergraduates who attended on a less than full-time basis. Those who

attended school half time or more, but less than full time, were more likely than others to

receive Federal aid, only, awards. Finally, those who attended school less than half time

were more likely than others to receive awards of institutional or private aid, alone.

43
1

I

Aid awards by type of aid

There were three types of aid which undergraduates enrolled in the fall of 1986 were

awarded: grants, loans, and work-study. These students were more likely to receive an

award which consisted of a single type of aid rather than two or three types. Roughly 60

percent of aided undergraduates were awarded packages of only one type of aid. Of

these, 57 percent were in the form of grants, 37 percent were in the form of loans, and

the remaining 6 percent were in work-study. Among all aided undergraduates, 43

percent received awards consisting of grant aid alone; 28 percent received awards

consisting of grants and loans; and 14 percent relied on loans, alone, as their source of

financial aid. Loans, therefore, were more likely to be offered in combination with grants

than by themselves. Work-study was also more likely to be awarded in combination with

grant aid than by itself.

The same three factors -- type of institution, level of family income, and attendance

status -- were associated with the type of aid received in the award. Aided

undergraduates at public institutions were more likely than those at the other two types

of institutions to receive grant aid, only. Those who attended private, for-profit institutions

were more likely than others to be awarded either loan aid, only, or loan aid in

combination with grant aid. Those who attended private, not-for-profit institutions were

more likely than those who attended other types of institutions to receive a combination

of all three types of aid.

In general, aided undergraduates with high family incomes were more likely to receive

awards of either grant aid, only, or loan aid, only, than those with low family incomes.

However, dependent students with lower family incomes who attended low cost

institutions were more likely to receive grant, only, awards. The opposite was the case

for those who received awards which combined grant and loan aid. Students from low

income families were more likely to receive these awards than those from high income

families.

Undergraduates who attended school less than half time were more likely to receive

awards of grant aid, only, than were those who attended at least half time. On the other

hand, those who attended school at least half time were more likely to receive a

combination of grants and loans, or loans, only. This relates to the fact that the Federal

Government is the primary lender to undergraduates. It generally requires these

borrowers to attend school at least half time.

Aid awards by source and type of aid

For purposes of discussing aid awards by source and type, the student financial aid

items were

likely to be

grouped into eight components: Using this scheme, the component most

held by aided undergraduates was the GSL. Forty-two percent of all aided

44
I

undergraduates held this award. Eleven percent relied on it alone and 31 percent

combined it with some other type of aid. The next most commonly held aid component

was a Pen Grant, which 36 percent of all aided students received. Five percent relied on

the Pen Grant, alone, while 31 percent combined this award with other types of aid to

make up their aid packages. Seventeen percent of all aided undergraduates were

awarded packages containing a GSL and Pen Grant. Six percent relied on the GSL and

Pen Grant combination, alone. The remaining 11 percent combined GSL and Pen with

other aid components.

Type of institution attended, level of family income, and attendance status were also

linked with awards characterized by source and type of aid received. Aided

undergraduates enrolled in private, for-profit institutions were more likely to receive GSLS,

or GSL and Pen Grant combinations than those who attended public or private, not-forprofit institutions. Undergraduate students enrolled in public or private, for-profit

institutions were more likely to receive Pen Grants, alone, than those who attended

private, not-for-profit institutions.

Students from families with low family incomes were more likely to receive Pen Grants

or aid awards with a Peil Grant component than students from families with high family

income. On the other hand, aided undergraduates from families with high family incomes

were more likely to receive either a GSL, an institutional grant, or a private grant as their

only source of financial aid than were students from families with low family incomes.

Because undergraduates awarded Federal aid are generally required to attend school

at least half time, those going to school less than half time did not receive GSLS or Pen

Grants. Since students going to school less than half time were frequently employed,

they were more likely than others to receive private grants.

Methodology

Three different methods of describing undergraduate aid awards or packages were

chosen: by source, by type, and by combinations of sources and types. Past literature

relied on the first and second methods, but primarily on the second as a way of

characterizing student financial aid awards. Unfortunately, the second method has

frequently been unable to provide unduplicated counts of students. AS a result, it can

produce puzzling results. Two examples are worth mentioning. First, a commonly held

view is that a larger proportion of students from low income families receive grant aid

than those from high income families. The results of chapter Ill do not support this

contention. However, by examining the distribution of grant aid by source, as was done

in chapter IV, we found that Federal grant aid is indeed distributed as is commonly

believed. Such is not the case, however, for either institutional or private grant aid. We

have discovered that in examining the distribution of grant aid, it is important to examine

the distribution by the source of that aid.

45
As a second example, a commonly held view is that loan aid is used primarily by more

wealthy families to supplement their expected family contributions in meeting the cost of

attendance. Hence, we would expect to find that undergraduates from low income

families were less likely to borrow than those from high income families. This result did

indeed hold for 14 percent of the aided undergraduates, those who received a loan, only,

aid award. However, we found that loan recipients were more likely to receive a loan in

combination with a grant than to receive it by itself (28 percent). Among those who

received the grant and loan combination, we found that students from low income families

were more likely to receive this type of award than those with high family incomes. In the

past, analysis of loan recipients would include those who received a loan, only, award

and a grant and loan, only, award together. Similarly, analysis of grant recipients would

include those who received a grant, only, award and a grant, and loan, only, award

together. The weakness of this approach was two-fold. First, double counting of aid

recipients would occur and grant, and loan, only, award recipients would appear in the

analysis twice. Second, the analysis of the distribution of loans by income would be

compromised since the distribution of loan, only, recipients by income is different from

the distribution of loan and grant, only, recipients by income.

These are only two examples which illustrate that a better understanding of the

distribution of aid may be obtained by: (1) examining unduplicated counts of aided

students; and (2) characterizing aid awards by both sources and types of aid. In the

past, analysts were constrained from following these suggestions by the databases

available to them. The NPSAS database provides analysts with a wealth of information

on student financial aid. Analysts now have the ability to characterize aid awards in

unique ways by combining sources and types of aid in different schemes. Furthermore,

since the unit of analysis is the student rather than the aid program, they may conduct

their analyses based on unduplicated counts of students. Hopefully, the appropriate use

of this powerful database will lead to a better understanding of how student financial aid

is distributed.

■

46
-!m

Glossary

College WOrk-StUdY Program (CWJ. (Public Law 89-329, as amended, Public Law

94-482, Higher Education Act of 1965, Title IV-C; 42 U.S. Code, sec. 275-1976.) A

campus-based Federal program designed to stimulate and promote the part-time

employment of undergraduate and graduate students with demonstrated financial need

in eligible institutions of higher education who need earnings from employment to finance

their course of study. This program provides grants to institutions for partial

reimbursement of wages paid to students.

Dependent student. A student dependent on his or her parents or guardians for financial

support. For financial aid purposes, a student is classified as dependent unless the

definition of independent student is met.

Federa/ aid. Student financial aid whose source of origin is a Federal agency. This aid

can either be provided by or administered by a Federal agency. This includes, but is not

limited to, programs of the U.S. Department of Education, Department of Health and

Human Services, Department of Defense, Veterans Administration, Department of

Agriculture, and National Science Foundation.

Financia/ aid. Consists of grants, loans, and work-study from sources other than family

or self to help students finance a postsecondary education.

Financia/ aid combinations. The total financial aid award received by a student.

Combinations of aid may include grants, loans, and work-study from a variety of sources

(Federal, State, institutional, othefi.

4-Year doctord institution. Institutions, or subsidiary elements, whose

provision of postsecondary education. They also confer at least

first-professional degree in one or more programs.

.

purpose is the

a doctoral or

Grants. A type of student financial aid that does not require repayment or employment.

It is usually awarded on the basis of need, possibly combined with some skills or

characteristics the student possesses.

Guaranteed Student Loan (GSL). (Public Law 89-329, as amended, Public Law 91-95, as

amended, Public Law 94-482, Higher Education Act of 1965, Title IV-B; 20 U.S. Code, sec.

1071-1 976.) A long-term, low-interest loan program administered by the Federal

Government through guarantee agencies. Students borrow money for education

expenses directly from banks and other lending institutions.

hdependent student. A student independent of financial support from his or her parents

or guardians. The factors considered are: the student’s age, length of time away from

47
parent’s home, status as a dependent for tax purposes, and the amount of financial

support provided by the parents to the student.

Institutional aid. Student financial aid whose source of origin is the postsecondary

institution. This aid is provided by the institution.

Less than 2-year institution. Institutions or subsidiary elements whose purpose is the

provision of postsecondary education and all of whose programs are less than 2 years

long. These institutions must offer, at a minimum, one program at least 3 months long

that results in a terminal occupational award, or is creditable toward a formal 2-year or

higher award.

Loans. A type of student financial aid which advances funds and which is evidenced by

a promissory note requiring the recipient to repay the specified amount(s) under

prescribed conditions.

National Direct Student Loan (NDSL). (Public Law 83-329, as amended, Public Law

94-482, Higher Education Act of 1965, Title IV; 42 U.S. Code, sec. 2571-1976) now known

as the Carl D. Perkins Loan program. A campus-based program that sets up funds at

higher education institutions for making long-term, low-interest loans to graduate,

undergraduate, and vocational students attending school at least half-time.

Off-campus housing. Students living in their own or a shared off-campus residence, not

with their parents, guardians, or other relatives.

Other 4-year institution. Institutions or subsidiary elements whose purpose is the

provision of postsecondary education. They confer at least a baccalaureate or master’s

degree in one or more programs. These institutions cannot award a degree higher than

a master’s.

Parent Loans for Undergraduate Students (PLUS). (Authorized under Title IV, Higher

Education Act of 1965, as amended.) A Federal program that allows parents of

dependent undergraduate, graduate and first-professional students (prior to 1987, only

dependent undergraduate students) to make long-term loans for their children’s

education expenses. These loans are made directly by banks and other lending

institutions.

(PLUS)/Auxi/iary Loans to Assist Students (AMS). (Authorized under Title IV, Higher

Education Act of 1965, as amended.) Currently known as Supplemental Loans for

Students (SLS). A Federal program that allows independent undergraduate students,

and graduate/professional students to make long-term loans for their education expenses.

These loans are made directly by banks and other lending institutions.

Pen Grants. (Public Law 92-318, as amended, Public Law 94-482, Education

48

1

I
Amendments of 1972, Title IV; 20 U.S. Code, sec. 1070a-1976.) A Federal student

financial aid entitlement program that provides eligible undergraduate students who have

not yet completed a baccalaureate program with need-based grants to help them defray

the cost of postseconda~ education. (Note: Grant limitations are subject to change with

revised legislation.)

Private, for-profit institution. An educational institution that is under private control and

whose profits, derived from revenues, are subject to taxation.

Private, not-for-profit institution. An educational institution that is controlled by an

individual or by an agency other than a State, a subdivision of a State, or the Federal

Government; and is usually supported primarily by other than public funds; and the

operation of whose program rests with other than publicly elected or appointed oticials.

Public institution. An educational institution supported primarily by public funds and

operated by publicly elected or appointed school officials programs and one whose

activities are under the control of these officials.

Fface/ethnicity. Categories used to describe groups to which individuals belong, or

belong in the eyes of the community, or with which they identify. The categories do not

denote scientific definitions of anthropological origins.

American Indian (or Alaskan Native). A person having origins in any of the original

peoples of North America and who maintains cultural identification through tribal

affiliation or community recognition.

Asian American (or Pacific Islander). A person having origins in any of the original

peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, the Indian Subcontinent, or Pacific Islands.

This includes people from China, Japan, Korea, the Philippine Islands, Samoa,

India, and Vietnam.

Hack, Non-Hispanic. A person having origins in any of the black racial groups of

Africa (except those of Hispanic origin).

Hispanic. A person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American

or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race.

White, Non-Hispanic. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of

Europe, North Africa, or the Middle East.

Source of suppott. The origin of different sources of support to help the student defray

the cost of a postsecondary education.

State aid. Student financial aid whose source of origin is a State agency. This aid can

49
either be provided or administered by a State agency.

Student attendance status:

Full-time undergraduate. Student enrolled for 12 or more semester credits, or 12

or more quarter credits per academic term; or 24 clock hours per week in

institutions which measure progress in terms of clock hours.

Part-the undergraduate. A student enrolled for either 11 semester credits or less

or 11 quarter credits or less per academic term; or less than 24 clock hours per

week in institutions which measure progress in terms of clock hours.

Supplementary Education Opportunity Grants (SEOG). (Public Law 92-318, as amended,

Public Law 94-482, Higher Education Act of 1965, Title IV; Subpart A-2; 20 U.S. Code,

sec. 1070b-1 976). A campus-based program that provides financial assistance to

undergraduate students who have not yet completed a baccalaureate program, with

demonstrated financial need to enable them to attend college. Priority for SEOG awards

must be given to Pen Grant recipients. The grants are made directly to institutions of

higher education, which select students for the awards. (Note: Grant limitations are

subject to change with revised legislation.)

Title IV Programs. Those Federal student aid programs administered within the

Department of Education and authorized under Title IV of the Higher Education Act of

1965, as amended. Title IV programs encompass Pen Grants, Perkins (formerly NDSL)

loans, College Work-Study (CWS), Supplemental Education Opportunity Grants (SEOG),

Guaranteed Student Loans (GSL), Supplemental Loans for Students (SLS, formerly

ALAS), Parent loans for Undergraduate Students (PLUS), State Student Incentive Grants

(SSIG), and TRIO. Funds for these programs are appropriated annually by Congress.

Tuition and fees. Amount of money charged to students for instructional services (tuition)

and additional services that the tuition charge does not cover (fees).

2-year institution. Institutions or subsidiary elements whose purpose is the provision of

postsecondary education. They confer at least a 2-year formal award (certificate or

associate degree) or have a 2-year program that is creditable toward a baccalaureate or

higher degree in one or more programs. These institutions cannot award a

baccalaureate degree.

Undergraduate student. A student enrolled in a 4-year or 5-year baccalaureate degree

program, in an associate degree program, or in a vocational or occupationally specific

program below the baccalaureate level.

Work-study. A campus-based program designed to stimulate and promote the part-time

50
employment of undergraduate and graduate students with demonstrated financial need.

The work-study program is distinquished from CWS in that it is a generic term used to

refer to programs that encourage the part-time employment of postsecondary students,

regardless of the source of funding.

51
References

Anderson, C. A. Student Financial Aid to Full-time Undergraduates, Fall 1984.

American Council On Education. Washington, D.C. 1986.

Carroll, C. D. Packaging of Grants, Loans, and Earnings for Financing Postsecondary

Education. National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, D.C. 1984.

Hartman, R. W. “Federal Options for Student Aid.” Public Policy and Private Higher

Education. Edited by Breneman, D. W. and Finn, C. E. Brookings Institution.

Washington, D.C. 1987

Lewis, G. L. Trends in Student Aid: 1980 to 1988. The College Board. Washington,

D.C. September 1988.

Maw, Cadyle E. Improving Financial Aid Data: Categorizing Aid Packages from

Grants, Loans, and Work. Paper presented at the 1987 Annual Meetings of the

American Statistical Association.

Nichols, Edward E. “Financial Aid Awards: Predictors of Grade-Point Averages.”~

Journal of Student Financial Aid. Vol. 10, No. 3, November 1980.

Olivas, M. A. “Financial Aid Packaging Policies.” Journal of Higher Education. Vol.

56, No. 4, July/August 1985.

Smith, P. and Henderson, C. Federal Student Aid: Who Receives It and How is It

Packaged? American Council on Education. Washington, D.C. May 1977.

Stampen, J. O. and Cabrera, A. F. “Exploring the Effects of Student Aid on Attrition.”

The Journal of Student Financial Aid. Vol. 16, No. 2, Spring 1986.

Stampen, J. O. and Cabrera, A. F. “The Targeting and Packaging of Student Aid and

Its Effect on Attrition.” Economics of Education Review. Vol. 7, No. 1 1988.

Wagner, A. P., and Rice, L. D. Student Financial Aid: Institutional Packaging and

Family Expenditure Patterns. The Washington Office of the College Board.

Washington, D.C. April 1977.

Wagner, A. P. and Tabler, K. A. Distribution and Packaging of Student Financial Aid:

Some Evidence From the Survey of the High School Class of 1972. U.S.

Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Washington, D.C. 1977.

53
I

Appendix A:

Detailed tables for chapters 11, Ill, and IV

55
.

m

-1

Table A2. la--Aided dependent undergraduates en,rolled in the fall of 1986, by source of aid award,

cost of attendance, and family Lnccms

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------- ---------------- -------

Aid ●wards by source of aid

----------------------------------------- --------------------------------- ---

Cost of attendance Aided Federal Federal & Federal, All

and undergraduates Federal Inst. Private . State & state Lnst itut ion State, and other

family income (in thousands ) Total only only only only only only Lnst. only avards*

------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------- ------------- -----------------------

Total

Low cost :

Low f ami 1 y income

Medium family income

High family income

High cost:

Low family incc+na

Medium family incoma

High fsmily income

Total

Low cost :

Low family income

Medium family income

High family income

High cost:

Low f smi 1 y incc+ne

Medium family income

High family Lncoms

--------- ----------------

3,367

547

501

357

563

647

752

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

--------------

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

NA

NA

NA

liA

NA

NA

NA

28.0

33.1

30.1

2.4.9

31.5

24.3

25.0

$3,129

2,841

2,507

2,293

4,220

3,467

2,905

--------------

Percent

18.4 5.3 3.2 15.5 10.0

14.1 5.8 2.0 25.5 5.8

23.8 7.9 3.7 17.5 4.7

37.4 12.7 5.6 5.5 4.0

6.6 1.3 1.8 22.3 11.2

10.6 2.6 2.5 15.7 13.4

24.7 4.9 4.3 6.1 15.7

Average award for full-time aided undergraduates

$2,110 s,a97 S1,221

1,515 1,311 --

1,052 1, 26a 961

1,234 1,166 1,220

2,S03 -- 1,524

2,950 2,155 1,451

2,795 2,615 1,239

-----------------------------

S.6 11.0

5.0 a.7

3.0 9.3

1.3 8.6

lb. a 10.5

16.5 lk. b

6.9 12.4

.$3,659 S5,977 $6,71a NA

3,363 3,930 4, a55 NA

2,658 3,502 4,250 NA

l,a51 3,634 -- NA

4,731 7,236 7,880 NA

3,954 7,028 6,913 NA

3,521 5,699 6,328 NA

------------------------------------------

* Includes those who did not report their source of aid.

-- Too few cases for a reliable estimate.

NOTE: Percents are based on undupl icated counts of aided undergraduates.

Details may not aid to totals due to rounding.

SOURCE : U. S. Department of Education, National Center for Educat ion Statistics,

1987 Nat ional Post secondary Student Aid Study.
C.Jl co

Table A2. lb--Aided independent undergraduates enrolled in the fall of 1986, by source of aid award,

cost of attendance , and family income

------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------

Aid avard by source of aid

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cost of attendance Aided Federal Federal & Federal, Al 1

and uncle rgraduates Federal Inst. Private State C state institution State, and

family income

other

(in thousands) 2/ Total only only only only only only inst. only awards 1 /

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Total

Low cost :

Low family income

Medium family income

High family income

High cost:

Low family income

Medium family income

High family incoms

Total

Low cost :

Low family income

Medium family income

High family income

High cost:

Low family income

Medium family income

High family income

2,064

409

402

494

271

297

186

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

39.5

42.9

41.1

28.4

42.1

47.1

41.5

.$3,824

3,454

3,177

2,920

4,962

4,564

3,573

Percent

10.0 11.6 2.0 18.0 7.4

7.2 4.2 1.7 26.2 7.9

9.8 4.9 1.6 24.3 7.8

18.2 34.2 3.6 4.3 3.7

3.8 1.7 1.0 24.0 9.6

3.1 2.3 0.9 21.4 9.7

14.2 11.4 2.4 8.5 8.1

Average award for full-t ime aided undergraduates

$2,296 $2,355 $2,071 $4,376 S5,292

-- -- -- 4,156 4,667

-- -- -- 3,563 3,940

1,622 1,237 -- 3,144 4,691

-- -- -- 5,374 6,774

-- -- -- 4,798 5,677

3,090 -- -- 4,650 6,506

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 \ Includes those who did not report their source of aid.

2/ Details do not sum to total due to missing values for incrsns and costs.

-- Too few cases for a reliable estimate

NOTE: Percents are based on undupl icated counts of aided undergraduates.

Details may not aid to totals due to rounding.

SOURCE: U. S. Department of Educat ion, National Center for Education Statistics,

1987 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study.

4.0 7.5

3.5 6.4

3.2 7.3

1.1 6.5

7.8 10.0

7.5 8.0

4.2 9.7

.$6,667 NA

-- NA

4,914 NA

-- NA

8,102 NA

7,119 NA

6,628 NA

--------------- .
Table A2. 2--Aided undergraduates enrolled in the fall of 1986, by source of aid award

and control and level of inst itut ion

----------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Aid award by source of aid

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cent rol and Aided Federal Federal C Federal, Al 1

level of uncle rg raduat es Federal Institution Private State & state inst itut ion State, 6 other

inst itut ion (in thousands ) Total only only only only only only inst. only awards*

--------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Percent

7.7 2.8 16. b 9.0 6.9

‘3.7

5.5

3.5

2.3

0.8

17.3

15.9

19.2

9.4

2.0

0.6

1.2

0.3

$6,708

4,664

4,868

4,630

.-

--

7,679

8,746

7,253

5,611

--

_-

--

--

9.6

8.9

11.0

8.3

7.6

5.5

14.2

13.6

15.2

10.1

6.6

3.1

3.7

2.7

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

HA

NA

NA

Total 5,431 100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

32.4 15.2

Public

4-year doctoral

Other b-year

2-year

Less than 2-year

3,540

1,270

836

1,361

72

32.5 17.0

34.3 16.4

32.9 12.3

29.7 20.6

51.9 11.5

8.9 3.2 19.5 6.3

6.6 3.0 14.7 8.5

6.4 3.1 27.9 5.6

12.8 3.2 18.9 4.9

4.7 3.9 18.1 3.6

6.6 2.5 10.7 18.1

8.0 2.4 8.2 21.0

6.2 2.5 11.1 17.2

3.3 3.2 17.5 11.9

4.4 3.7 32.5 2.3

Private, not-for-profit

~-year doctoral

Other 4-year

2-year

Less than 2-year

1,380

490

787

92

11

15.0 15.6

14.7 16.2

13.6 15.0

25.6 19.0

44.7 3.8

78.1 2.3

69.4 1.9

83.0 2.6

1.8 0.5 10.5 3.1

1.6 0.5 19.2 2.5

1.9 0.6 5.5 3.4

Private, for-profit

2-year and above

Less than 2-year

511

186

325

Average award for full-time aided undergraduates

Total NA $3,414 $2,133 $2,005 s ,333 $3,928 .$5,794

Public

4-year doctoral

Other 4-year

2-year

Less than 2-year

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

2,791 1,601

3,058 2,335

2,787 1,367

2,383 845

2,811 --

1,329 1,138 3,466 4,184

1,854 -- 3,976 4,813

1,190 940 3,601 3,855

734 -- 2,841 3,110

-- -- 3,484 --

3,803 3,225

4,047 4,171

3,556 2,754

3,697 1,580

5,288 --

3,671 1,526 5,151 6,986

3,664 1,726 5,540 8,161

3,705 1,376 5,044 6,212

-- 1,419 4,738 5,319

-- -- 5,031 --

Private, not-for-profit

4-year doctoral

Other 4-year

2-year

Less than 2-year

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

5,998 -- 6,095 6,574

-- -- 5,822 7,999

-- -- 6,611 5,831

4,863 2,696

4,157 --

5,234 2,546

Private, for-profit

2-year and above

Less than 2-year

NA

NA

NA

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ .----------------

* includes undergraduates who received aid but did not report their source of aid.

-- Too few cases for a reliable estimate.

NOTE: Percents are based on undupl icated counts of aided undergraduates.

Details may not aid to totals due to rounding.

SOURCE: U. S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,

1987 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study.
m

o

Table A2. 3--Aided undergraduates enrolled in the fall of 1986, by source of aid award,

attendance status and dependency status

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _________________

Aid award by source of aid

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Selected Aided

student undergraduates Federal

characteristic (in thousands ) Total only

----------------------------------------------------------

Total 5,431 100.0

Attendance status

Full-time 4,200 100.0

Half-time or more 845 100.0

Less than half -t ime 386 100.0

Dependency status

Dependent 3,366 100.0

Independent 2,064 100.0

Total NA NA

Attendance status

Full-time NA NA

Half-time or more NA NA

Less than half-time NA NA

Dependency status

Dependent NA NA

Independent NA NA

---------------------------------------------------

32.4

33.1

38.2

11.7

28.0

39.5

Federal Federal & Federal, Al 1

Institution Private State & state institution state, and other

only only only only only inst only awardsl

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Percent

15.2 7.7 2.8 16.4 9.0 6.9 9.6

13.3 3.6 2.6 18.4 10.2 8.2 10.6

15.9 12.2 3.0 13.7 6.7 2.6 7.7

34.6 42.0 3.4 0.1 0.7 1.3 6.2

18.4 5.3 3.2 15.5 10.0 8.6 11.0

10.0 11.6 2.0 18.0 7.4 4.0 7.5

Average award for full-time aided undergraduates2

$3,414 $2,133 $2,005 $1,333 $3,928 S5,794 $6,708 NA

3,b14 2,133 2,005 1,333 3,928 5,794 6,708 NA

2,667 1,421 1,152 1,256 2,684 3,659 4,918 NA

801 1,596 746 -- -- -- -- NA

3,129 2,110 1,897 1,221 3,659 5,977 6,718 NA

3,82fI 2,296 2,355 2,071 4,376 5,292 6,667 NA

------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------

1 Includes those who did not report their source of aid.

2 Except when attendance status is not full-time

-- Too few cases for a reliable estimate .

NOTE: Percents are based on unduplicated counts of aided undergraduates.

Details may not aid to totals due to rounding.

SOURCE: U. S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,

1987 Nat ional Post secondary Student Aid Study.

—————. . .. —-

.—

. . .
Ot

Table A2.4--Aided undergraduates enrot ted in the fall of 1986, by source of aid auard,

age, academic level, and grade point average

--------------------------- --------------------------------------- ----------------------------- --------------- ---------- . . . . . . . . . .

Aid award by source of aid

------ ----------------------------------------- --------------------- ------------- -

Se Lected Aided Federa( Federal & Federal, All

student undergraduates Federal Institution Privat e Stat e & state institution State, an d

characteristi c

other

(in thousands) Tota( on[y onl y onl y only on[y onl y inst. only amardsl

----------------------------------------------------- ---------- ----------- ------------------------------------------------------- -

Percent

Tota[

Age

23 or younger

24-29

30 or older

Academic level

Contact hour

Freshman

Sophomore

.luni or

Senior

Grade point average2

2.3 or les s

2.4-2.8

2.9-3.3

3.4-4.0

Total

Age

23 or younger

24-29

30 or eider

Academic 1 evel

Contact hour

Freshman

Sophomore

Junior

Senior

Grade point average2

2.3 or les s

2.4-2.8

2.9-3.3

3.4-4.0

--------------------- -

5,431

3,571

855

1,004

387

1.727

1;307

892

1,118

1,115

754

1,016

718

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

..-....---.-.---- -

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

. . . -----

32.4 15.2 7.7 2.8 16.4 9.0

29.8 16.0 4.1 3.0 16.6 10.7

43.1 12.5 10.0 2.1 15.7 6.5

32.4 14.9 18.2 2.4 16.3 5.2

66.5

31.9

6.1 3.8 2.2 10.4

15.8 7.8 2.7 17.3

3.0

7.6

29.8 13.7 7.8 3.3 19.2 10.1

27.9 14.6 6.6 3.0 17.8 10.4

27.8 19.9 9,5 2.1 12.8 10.9

34.8

29.9

12.3 5.0 21.5

13.7 5.2 H 19.9

9.3

10.2

28.3 15.7 9.2 2.4 15.3 9.8

22.7 21.1 15.5 3.3 9.5 9.3

Average award for ful l-time aided undergraduates

$3,414 $2,133 S2,005 $1,333 S3 ,928 $5,79 4

3,242 2,073 1,885 1,237 3,825 5,932

3,725 2,857 2,242 -- 4,256 4,936

3,789 2,050 2,356 2,072 4,099 5,475

4,508 1,355 4,635 -- 4,510 5,227

3,236 1,659 1,502 1,310 3,767 5,586

3,112 1,715 1,682 1,065 3,765 5,415

3,163 2,385 2,082 1,201 3,936 5,951

3,360 3,145 2,384 1,635 4,387 6,335

3,247 2,094 2,177 1,411 3,968 5,446

3,126 2,191 2,094 1,284 4,019 5,587

3,142 1,977 1,617 1,201 3,904 5,977

3,342 2,395 1,544 1,225 4,054 5,411

6.9

8.8

3.4

2.8

0.8

6.0

7.6

9.4

7.4

;::

8.5

6.0

S6, 708

6,761

5,922

6,929

-.

6,418

6,592

6,875

7,078

6,494

6,485

6,840

6,457

9.6

11.0

6.7

7.8

7.2

10.9

8.5

10.3

9.6

U

10.8

12.6

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

,------ . ------------------- --------------------- . ----- -------------------- . --------

1 Includes those who did not report their source of aid.

2 App(ies to credit-hour students only.

-- Too few cases for a re(iable estimate.

NOTE : Percents are based on undupl icated counts of aided undergraduates.

Detai 1s may not aid to totals due to rounding.

SCURCE : U. S. Department of Educat ion, National Center for Educat ion Statist its,

1987 Nationa( Postsecondary Student Aid Study.
Table A2.5--Aided undergraduates enrol Led in the fal 1 of 1986, by source of aid,

sex, and race/ethnici ty

----..-----.---------- ------------------------------- ------------------------------- ------ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . --------- ------

Aid award by source of aid

------------------------------------------------------------------- . . . . . . . ------- -

Selected Aided Federal Federal & Federal, All

student mdergraduates Federal Institution Privat e Stat e & state institution State, an d other

characteristi c (in thousands) Tota l C+lly only only only only onl y inst. on[y auards*

--------------- -. . ..- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------ ----------- . . . . . . . ----- -

Percent

TotaL

Sex

Male

Femate

Race/ethnicity

American Indian

Asian American

Black, non- Hispenic

Hispanic

Uhite, non-Hispani c

5,431

2,392

3,039

2E

698

394

4,025

Total NA

Sex

Male NA

Female NA

Race/ethnic i t y

American Indian NA

Asian American NA

B(ack, non- Hispenic NA

Hispanic NA

Uhite, non-Hispani c NA

------------------------------------- .-.

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

32.4

32.8

32.0

34.5

24.0

43.2

38.8

30.4

$3,414

3,416

3,412

3,401

3,%5

3,796

3,919

3,235

15.2 7.7 2.8 16.4 9.0

16.2 7.1 3.1 15.1 9.5

14.4 8.1 2.5 17.4 8.6

16.6 2.8 4.4 16.3 6.4

17.9 4.7 2.2 21.7 8.5

9.1 4.2 1.3 20.2

12.1 5.1 21.6 ::;

16.4 8.8 ;:: 14.9 9.3

Average award for ful l-time aided tndargraduates

S2,133 S2, 005 S1,333 S3, 928 S5 ,794

2,486 2,105 1,409 3,948 6,117

1,804 1,934 1,268 3,914 5,5W

-. . . -. .-

2,878 -- -- 3, 7;; 6,639

2,589 2,186 -- 4,328 6,125

2,442 -- -- 3,858 5,789

2,031 1,869 1,325 3,869 5,685

6.9

6.9

6.9

5.1

9.5

5.0

5.2

7.2

M, 708

6,839

6,603

. .

7,082

7,614

7,398

6,522

9.6

9.3

10.1

13.9

11.5

8.0

8.5

9.9

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-------------------------------------------- -------------------------- ------- ------- -.----

● Includes those uho did not report thei r source of aid.

-- Too few cases for a reliable estimate.

NOTE : Percentages are based on undupl i cated counts of aided undergraduates.

Oetai 1s may not aid to totals due to rounding.

SOURCE : U. S. Department of Education, Nationa L Center for Education Statistics,

1987 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study.
8

Table A3.la--Aided dependent mdergraduates enrolled in the fall of 1986, by type of aid award,

cost of attendance, and fsmi (y inccme

------------------------------- . . . -------------------------- ----------------------------------- -------- -

Aid award by type of aid

--------------------------------------------------- -

Grants,

Cost of attendance loans, & Grant s

and Aided Grants nork- & ~ork- A l l

fami [y income mdergraduates Grants & [ oans Loans study stud y other

(in thousands) Tota( onl y onl y onl y onl y onl y auards*

------------------------------- ----------------------------- ---------------------- . . . . . . . . . . . . . -...---- -

Total

LobI cost:

Low family income

Mediun fami[y income

High family income

High cost:

Lou fsmi(y income

Mediun fami(y income

High famity income

Tota (

Lou cost :

LOIII fsmi [y income

Hedim family income

High family income

High cost:

Lou fami Iy income

Mediun fami[y income

High family income

------------------------ -

38367

547

501

357

563

647

752

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

---------------.

100.0 40.4

100.0 58.0

100.0 48.8

100.0 55.4

100.0 28.6

100.0 26.3

100.0 35.6

Average award for

NA S2,373

NA 2,064

NA 1,380

NA 1,280

NA 3,354

NA 3,089

NA 2,917

. . --------------- -

Percent

26.1 15.1

20.0 5.2

19.8 17.6

8.2 25.6

43.8

34.8 1::;

22.6 23.2

9.6 4.5

5.9 8.0

4.7 3.4

1.0 3.1

15.9 4.8

17.1 3.9

8.6 3.6

full-time aided undergrhtes

S5,248 S28689 S7,352 S4,468

4,318 2,684 4,089

3,708 2,379 ::Z 3,026

3,093 2,125 -- 3,511

6,076 3,347 8,248 5,050

5,736 3,027 7,649 5,359

5,141 2,827 7,650 4,787

. . . . . . ..- ----------------- ------ .-..---- -

● Includes those ho did not report the type of aid they received.

-- Too fe~ cases for a reliable estimate.

NOTE : Percents are based cm undqd i cated counts of aided undergraduates.

Oetails may not aid to totals due to rounding.

SOURCE : U. S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,

1987 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study.

4.3

2.9

::;

;::

6.4

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

--- -
Table A3.lb--Aided indapdant undergrechetes enrol(ed in the fall of 1986, by type of aid awerd,

cost of attendance, and femi (y incom e

---------- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . --------------------------- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -------------------- -------- -------

Aid award by type of aid

---------------------------------- --------- --------- .

Granta,

Cost of attendance loens, t Grant s

and Aided Grants work- & nork- All

family income mdergraduetea Grants & loans Loena stud y stud y other

(in thouaanda) 2/ Tota l onl y Onty onl y Only onl y ewerds 1/

----------- . . . . . . . . . . . -------------------------- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ------------------ ---------------- .

Total 2,064

Low coat:

Low fwnily income 409

)kdiun family income 402

High family income 494

High cost:

Low f-i [y inccsne 271

Medium femi~y income 297

High family income 186

Tota l NA

Low cost :

Low family income NA

Mediun fami (y income NA

High family income NA

High cost:

Low fanity income NA

Mediun fami ly income NA

High family income NA

------------------------------------------ -

Percent

100.0 47.2 30.0 11.2

100.0 51.2 28.3 3.6

100.0 49.6 28.6 10.5

100.0 68.9 9.8 14.7

100.0 27.9 52.7

100.0 27.0 49.7 1::$

100.0 36.1 27.0 29.7

4.6 4.5 2.5

6.3 8.4

3.4 5.1 ;::

0.4 2.3 3.9

10.4 4.4 1.2

6.6 3.9

2.6 1.2 ;::

Average award for f ul 1 -t ina aided tstdergradmtes

MA S2,663 S5,497 S3,093 %,749 S4,804 NA

NA 2,269 5,141 3,098 6,107 4,074 NA

NA 2,290 4,724 2,933 5,936 4,281 NA

NA 1,794 4,022 2,466 -- -- NA

NA 3,1%6 6,312 3,908 7,424 5,332 NA

NA 3,588 5,n7 3,477 7,427 -- NA

NA 3,366 5,762 3,371 -- -- NA

. -------------------------------- . . . . . . . ------- . . . . . . . . . .----

1/ Includes those uho did not report the type of aid they received.

2/ Detai [s do not sun to tota( due to missing values for income and costs.

-- Too few cases for a reliable estimate.

NOTE : Percents are based on undup( icated counts of aided undergraduates.

Detai (s may not aid to totals due to rounding.

SOURCE : U. S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,

1987 Nationa[ Postsecondary Student Aid Study.
Table A3.2--Aided undergraduates enrolled in the fall of 1986, by type of aid a~ard,

and control and leve( of institution

------------------------------------------------------- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Aid a~ard by source of aid

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ----------------- ------------ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -----

Average award for

Percent fu[l-time aided mdergreduates

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ----------- ---------------

Grants, Grants,

loans,& Grant s Loans, & Grant s

Cent rol and Aided Grants uork- & nork- AIL Grants work- S uorklevel o f tirgreduetes Grants & loans Loan s study study other Grants & (clans Loans study stud y

institutio n (in thousands) Tota( onl y only onl y onl y onl y auards* Onty onl y onl y onl y onl y

-------------------- -------- ------------------------------- ----------- . . . . . . . . . -------- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -------- . . . . .

Total 5,431 100.0 43.0

50.3

37.3

41.2

67.6

56.6

34.2

34.3

33.0

43.7

36.5

16.2

15.9

16.3

27.6

21.9

28.8

24.4

13.8

23.2

32.3

31.3

32.7

33.4

41.2

54.9

49.0

58.3

13.6 7.7 4.5 3.6

13.1 5.5 4.0

17.5 ::; 4.5

15.3 ::; 5.6 4.6

2.1 5.4 3.3

;:; 2.8 3.9 4.2

15.8 4.3 3.5

1::; 16.0 3.4 4.3

9.0 17.0 5.2 3.1

11.8 6.3 3.3

14.7 3.4 ;;; 1.2

27.3 0.7 0.3 0.6

32.6 1.1 0.4 1.0

24.3 0.5 0.2 0.4

S2 ,456

1,885

2,252

1,935

1,560

1,677

3,%7

4,796

3,577

2,Z59

5,461

3,W2

4,080

3,946

$5,34 3 $2,79 3 S7,216 S4, 583

P*1 ic

4-year doctoral

Other 4-year

2-year

Less than 2-year

3,540

1,270

836

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

4,312

4.511

2,433

2,490

2,395

2,299

. .

5,402

5,805

5,066

5,051

. .

3,937

5,151

3,431

3,262

. .

4;157

3,999

48535

1,361

72

3,048

3,228

2,934

2,818

3,139

8,838

10,316

8,040

7,387

. .

6,276

7,282

5,972

Private, not-for-profi t

4-year doctoral

Other 4-year

2-year

Less than 2-year

1,380

490

787

92

11

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

6,57S

7,623

6,094

5,197

6,139

. .

.-

6,087

5,679

6,307

3,674

3,228

4,057

Private, for-profi t

2-year and above

Less than 2-year

100.0

100.0

100.0

. .

--

--

.-

. .

.-

--------------------------------------------------------------------- -------- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ------------------- --------- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

● Includes those uho did not report the type of aid they received.

-- Too few cases for a ret i able estimate.

NOTE : Percents are based on undup( icated counts of aided mdergraduates.

Oetails may not aid to totals due to rounding.

SUIRCE : U. S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,

1987 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study.
Tsble A3.3--Aided undergraduates enrolled in the fal 1 of 1986, by type of aid award,

attendance status, and dqadency status

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -------- . . . . . . . . -------- . . . . . . . . -------- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -------- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Aid award by type of aid

. . . . . . . . . . . . . ------------ --------- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Average auard for

Percent full-time aided mdergraduates2

-. . . . ..- ------- . . . . . . . ..- --------- . . . . . . . . -------- ------- ------ . . .. ---- . . . . . . . . . . -------- . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Grants, Grants,

[oens,& Grant s loans,& Granta

Selected Aided Grants nork- t wrk- All Grants uork- & uorkStudent undergraduates Grants & loans Loan s stud y stud y other Grants & 10SI’IS Loens

characteristi c (in thousands) Total

stud y

onl y cdy

stud y

ordy Onty only awardsl onl y ody onl y On(y onl y

. . . . . . . ..- . . . . . . . . . . . . ---------- ------------- -------------- . . . . . . . . ---------- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ---------- . . . . . . . . ------------ -------- ---------

Tota 1 5,431 100.0 43.0 27.6 13.6 7.7 4.5 3.6 S2,456 S5,343 S2,793 S7,216 S4,583

Attendance status

Full-tim e 4,200 100.0 36.8 31.3 14.3 9.4 4.9 3.3 2,456 5,343 2,793 7,287 4,583

Haif-time or more 845 100.0 54.2 20.8 15.2 2.6 4.3 1,410 4,277 2,603 5,961 4,564

Less than hat f-time 386 100.0 85.3 2.5 2.6 0.0 ::: 6.6 795 -- -- -- --

Dependency status

Dependent 3,366 100.0 40.4 26.1 15.1 9.6 4.5 4.3

Independent

2,3~ 5,248 2,6439

2,064 100.0 47.2

7,352 4,468

30.0 11.2 4.6 4.5 2.5 2,663 5,497 3,093 6,749 4,804

---------- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -------- -------- ---------------- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -------- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ----------- . . . . . . . . .

1 Includes those who did not rq.wrt the type of aid they received.

2 Except uhere attendance status is otherwise indicated.

-- Too fe~ cases for a reliable estimate.

NOTE : Percents are based on undup[ icated comts of aided mdergrackmtes.

Details may not aid to totals due to rounding.

SOURCE : U. S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,

1987 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study.

——-—.—._—— — .—-—-— —.
— —. ———.——— . ———._

-.— ——

Table A3.4--Aided undergraduates enrolled in the fal[ of 1986, by type of aid auard

age, academic level , and grade point average

. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ --------- -------- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Aid auard by type of aid

---------------------------------------------------------------- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ------ ------ -----

Average auard for

Percent ful i-time aided undergraduates

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ---------- -------- -------- -------- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Grants, Grants,

loans, & Grants loans,& Grant s

Selected Aided Grants uork- & work- All Grants nork- & uorkstudent undergraduates Grants & [ oans Loens study study other Grants & 1 oans Loans stud y

--:~::::::~!::~ :-----:j:-:~w:fp~ ---::: y!----:: !~----~!y----~! ~---- ~:~----.:;:y-----::::~ ~----- y!~-----y!~-----:y !y-----:~!~-----:~ !~--

study

Total 5,431 100.0 43.0 27.6 13.6 7.7 4.5 3.6 S2 ,456 $5,343 S2,793 S7,21L S4,583

Age

23 or yomger

24-29

30 or older

u) -1 Academic (evel

Contact hour

Freshman

Sophomore

Junior

Senior

3,571 100.0 38.2 29.0 14.2 10.0 4.7 3.9 2,397 5,338 2,n5 7,308 4,428

855 100.0 44.7 28.2 14.9 3.9 4.8 3.5 2,614 5,149 2,803 6,574 5,005

1 # 004 100.0 58.4 22.2 10.2 2.6 3.5 3.1 2,631 5,615 3,191 6,771 5,048

387 100.0 34.4 41.5 19.4 1.6 1.7 1.4 2,625 5,942

1,727

3,836 -- --

100.0 48.2 26.7 12.7 6.5 3.8 2,219 5,240 2,663 7,284 3,920

1,307 100.0 45.4 25.7 12.2 4.8 ::: 2,300 5,295 2,713 6,792 3,909

892 100.0 37.8 28.5 14.3 18:: 4.1 2,749 5,170 2,564 7,307 4,326

1,118 100.0 39.2 25.9 14.1 8.5 ::; 6.2 2,874 5,401 2,765 7,552 6,285

Grade point average2

2.3 or less 1,115 100.0 38.0 29.2 14.3 9.2 5.4 3.9 2,553 5,035 2,579 6,793 3,854

2.4-2.8 100.0 38.5 28.9 14.0 9.7 5.1 3.8 2,452 5,057 2,744 7,062 4,203

2.9-3.3 1,;: 100.0 41.8 27.0 12.9 9.3 4.5 4.5 2,310 5,308 2,615 7,301 4,642

3.4-4.0 718 100.0 52.7 20.7 10.9 5.7 5.3 4.7 2,510 5,603 2,771 7,151 5,433

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..- . . . ... .................

1 Includes those who did not report the type of aid they received.

2 Pertains to credit-hour students only.

-- Too feu cases for a re(iable estimate.

NOTE : Percents are based on undupl icated counts of aided tirgredustes.

Oetails may not aid to totals due to rounding.

SOURCE : U. S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,

1987 Nations~ Postsecondary Student Aid Study.
?i

Tab(e A3.5--Aidad uxlargraduetes enrolled in the fall of 1986, by type of aid award,

sex, and race/ethni ci ty

. . . . . . . . . ---------------------------- . . . . . . . . . . . ------.-- --------- -------- . . . . . . . . ----------- -------- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .-

Aid auard by type of aid

. . . . . . . . ------- ----------------- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -------- -------- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Percent

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ------- -------- . . . . . . . . -------- . . . . . . . . . .

Grants,

Loans,& Grant s

Salected Aidad Grants work- & mork- A11

student undergraduates Grants & (oana Loan s stud y stud y

characteristi c

other

(in thousands) Tota l On[y Only onl y only On(y awards*

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Total 5.431 100.0 43.0 27.6 13.6 7.7 4.5 3.6

Average auard for

full-time aidad mdargreduataa

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Grants,

(oans,& Grant s

Granta work- & norkGrants & loans loans stud y study

only Ody Ody Cdy onl y

-------- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ---

$2,456 S5.343 $2,793 S7,216 S4,583

Sex

Hate

Female

2,392 100.0 43.3 27.0 14.1 7.4 4.1 4.1 2,666 5,446 2,826 7,386 4,827

3,039 100.0 42.7 28.1 13.2 7.9 4.8 3.3 2,287 5,263 2,764 7,090 4,412

Race/ethnicity

American Indian 56 100.0 49.5 24.3 7.7 3.5 7.7 3,342 5,U85 -“

Asian American 257 100.0 44.5 24.2 7.8 8.0 1::: 5.1 3,193 6,220 2,813 8,4;; ‘-

4,856

Black, non-Hisp 698 100.0 39.8 34.5 8.3 6.2 2,8~ 5,399 2,631 7,489 4,539

Hispanic 394 100.0 45.9 29.2 1::; 5.3 ;:: 2,607 6,042 3,358 7,620 3,838

Uhite, non-liisp 4,025 100.0 43.1 26.5 15.1 7.9 ::: 3.7 2,309 5,209 28769 7,041 4,620

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

● Includes those who did not report the type of aid they received.

-- Too fau cases for a reliable estimate.

NOTE : Percents are based on und@ icatad ctits of aidad undergraduates.

Detaila may not aid to totals due to rounding.

SOURCE : U. S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,

1987 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study.

. . .— —
Table A4.la--Aided dependent undergraduates enrolled in the fal 1 of 1986, by aid a~ard, cost of attendance, and level of family incom e

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ------- ------------------ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ------ ---------------------------------------- ------ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..-

Aid award by source and type of aid

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -------- --------------------------------------- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -------- -----

Pe[l, OFG, Other GSL, Pelt,

Cost of attendance Aided lnsti - GSL Stat e Federal OFG, Stat e All

and undergraduates tution Private an d Pen gran t

--!:!!!!.::! ------:!:-:! ?Y?!5?. -!!!!!.. ---!:!-----!!!?: . . ..!!.! !-...!!!. . . ..?!! .!. ----. !!?!--.---.!.!?----!!:!!:----!!!!!?----.!!!!!!:-

grant s State

Percent

Total

Lou cost:

Low income

Mediun income

High income

3,367 100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

10.7 11.4 7.6 5.8 4.7 3.6 3.1

3.4

2.7

1.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

S3,090

.-

.-

. .

--

. -

5,140

2.4 2.0 48.7

547

501

357

4.2 11.2 5.8 6.3 11.2 9.1

14.3 17.6 7.8 2.3 2.6 2.4

18.1 28.1 12.3 0.1 0.6 0.1

2.7 44.1

45.3

34.8

High cost:

Lou income

Hediun inccnne

High inccme

563

647

752

4.3 12.5 4.7 5.1

1::: ;:: 1.2 1.0

17.9 li:$ 4.7 ::7 0.0 0.0

1.7 61.7

69.1

53.4

Average award for ful 1- time aidad undergraduates

Total

Low cost :

Low income

Mediun income

High income

NA S2,587 S1 ,835 S1,658 S4,904 $1,554 S3 ,076 $995 S5,270 NA

NA

NA

NA

2,745 1,119 1,137 4,393 1,452 2,818

2,336 870 1,129 3,439 --

. .

2,166 1,061 1,087 -- --

. .

4,488

- -

- -

NA

NA

NA

High coat:

Low income

Mediun income

High income

NA

NA

NA

2,970 2,693 -- 4,962 1,795 3,648

2,737 2,726 1,840 3,907 --

- -

2,415 2,659 2,197 -- --

. .

1,337

1,345

877

5,855

4,529

.-

NA

NA

NA

. ---------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . --------------- ------ ------ -....------

* Includes those who did not report the source or type of their award.

-- Too few cases for a reliable estimate.

NOTE : Percents are based on umdupt icated counts of aided undergraduates.

Detaiis may not aid to totals due to romding.

SIYJRCE : U. S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,

1987 Nationa[ Postsecondary Student Aid Study.
Table A4.lb--Aidad i dapadent udargraduataa enrol(ad in the fa[l of 1986, by aid auard, cost of attendance, and levet of fami ty inccme

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ------------ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ---------- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Aid award by source and type of aid

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -------- . . . . . . . . ----------- . . . . . . . . . . . .

Pell, OFG, Other

Cost of attendance Aidad Insti -

GSL, Pen,

GSL Stat e Fadera[ OFG, Stata Al 1

and undergraduates tut ion Privat e

..!?! !!.:?-... --:!? .:!?! :?!-!! .:?:? ! . . . ..!... --..! !?.. -..!::?! . . ..!.!--... !.!:... --!F!. --..:Y!!.--.?!!!!;...-..!:+?-...!:!!!:!!

Percent

Total 2,064 100.0

LoH cost:

Lon inccms 409 100.0

Madiun income 402 100.0

High income 494 100.0

High cost:

Lou inccata 271 100.0

Madiun income 297 100.0

High income 186 100.0

10.7

3.0

1:::

2.6

z:;

S2,587

3,065

2,852

2,514

3,257

3,261

3,004

11.4 7.6 5.8 4.7 3.6 3.1 2.4 2 48.7

6.0 4.2 10.6 14.7 7.8

7.3 10.4 7.3 :::

1;:: 4:; 0.7 1.5 0.3 10.9

3.7

2.8

0.2

43.3

46,3

23.8

2.6 18.9 7.2 5.6 0.9

::: 17.8 4.9 5.4

1;:! 11.4 2.5 1.0 1.1 :::

0.6

0.8

2.0

6.9

3.4

0.8

53.0

52.4

43.8

Average auerd for f ul 1- t i ma aidad mdargreduates

Tota l NA NA

Lou cost :

Lou income NA NA

Mediun income NA NA

High income NA NA

High cost:

Lou income NA NA

Mediun income NA NA

High income NA NA

-------- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -.-------

S1,835 S1,658 S4,904 S1,554 S3,076 S3,090 S995 S5 ,270 NA

. . . . 4,974 1,671 2,896 --

- - . . 4,579 1,563 2,530 --

697 992 -- --

-. 3,244

5,297

. .

-.

NA

NA

NA

.-

.-

. .

5,951

5,782

-.

. . . . 5,548 1,8~ 4,099 --

. . - - 5,331 1,743 3,601 --

1,977 -- -- -- - - . .

NA

NA

NA

--

. .

-.

. . . . . . . . . . . -------------- ------------------- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ------- --------- . . . . . . . . -------- -.----

1/ Inctudes those who did not report the source or type of aid they received.

2/ Oetails do not edd to total due to missing values for income and costs.

-- Too feu cases for a reliable estimate.

NOTE : Percents are based on undupl i cated comts of aided wdergraduates.

Details may not aid to totals due to rounding.

SWRCE : U. S. Department of Education, National Center for E&cation Statistics,

1987 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study.
-4

Tabte A4.2--Aided undergraduates enrol led in the fal t of 1986, by source and type of auard, and control and leve~ of institution

. . . . . ..- .. -. .-. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ------------------------------- .------- . . . . . . . . . . . . --------- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Aid auard by source and type of aid

. . . ------------------------- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -------- -------- . . . . . . . . -------- . . . . . . . . . -

Petl, OFG, Other GSL, Pel(,

Control and Aided Insti - GSL Stat e Federai

1 evel of

OFG, Stat e All

undergraduates tution Private an d Pett gran t grant s Stat e gran t other

institutio n (in thousands) Tots I GSL gran t gran t Pen gran t (Pos ) (OFG) grants (GPOS) auards*

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -.------. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................

Tots 1

Pdic

4-year doctoral

Other 4-year

2-year

Less than 2-year

Private, not-f or-profit

4-year doctoral

Other 4-year

2-year

Less than 2-year

Private, for-profi t

2-year and above

Less than 2-year

5,431

3,540

1,270

836

1,361

72

1,380

490

787

92

11

Totat NA

Pti[ ic NA

4-year doctoral NA

Other 4-year NA

2-year NA

Less than 2-year NA

Private, not-for-profi t NA

4-year doctoral NA

Other 4-year NA

2-year NA

Less than 2-year NA

Private, for-profi t NA

2-year and above NA

Less than 2-year NA

. . . . . . . . . . . ..- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .--.---....---

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

------- -

10.7

10.2

13.9

12.3

;:;

H’

;::

12.1

22.1

25.9

20.0

S2,587

2,345

2,308

2,321

2,450

--

2,647

2,788

2,518

2,T33

. .

3,292

2,859

3,658

. . . . . . . . .

11.4

12.7

11.4

1::;

10.8

11.7

11.3

11.6

15.9

3.5

1.8

;::

S1,835

1,281

1,926

1,070

701

. .

3,032

4,200

2,539

1,378

- -

1,850

9,999

1,507

. . . ----- .

7.6

8.8

6.5

6.3

12.8

4.7

6.5

;::

3.3

4.4

1.8

1.6

1.9

S1,658

1,124

1,527

1,089

633

. -

3,171

3,283

3,063

. .

. -

4,148

. -

. .

5.8

3.8

5.1

3.8

;::

::;

1.4

1;:;

30.7

20.4

36.6

S4,904

4,010

4,038

3,939

3,W1

4,131

4,602

9,999

4,334

4,289

5,986

5,760

4,812

6,099

Percent

4.7

6.3

3.5

;:;

13.3

0.8

0.9

0.4

3.0

0.9

4.1

3.0

4.8

Average

$1,554

1,463

1,561

1,656

1,340

1,493

1*W1

- -

. -

. .

. .

2,194

2,234

2,179

3.6 3.1 2.4

4.4 4.1 2.7

2.4 2.4

::: 2.2 2.7

5.8

0.2 1::: ::!

1.7 1.0 2.3

1.0 1.4 2.1

0.8

;:: ::;

9.1 !:: 1.8

1.6 0.5

::; 1.2 0.5

1.8 1.8 0.5

2.0

2.2

H

2.2

0.0

2.2

5.5

2.4

5.0

0.9

aid award for ful i-time aided mdargradustes

S3,076 $3,090 S995 S5 ,270

2,720 2,379 4,728

3,129 2,795 F9 4,829

2,982 2,491 664 4,877

2,347 2,1n -- 4,495

. . . . . . . .

4,249 6,848 1,240 6,419

9,999 7,815 1,342 - -

4,320 -- 1,161 6,241

3,861 -- 1,285 .-

. . . . -. . .

4,574 5,267 -- 6,936

4,331 -- -- 6,960

4,873 4,820 --

- -

48.7

44.8

51.4

49.1

36.1

39.0

65.3

65.6

67.0

52.9

40.8

32.3

36.7

29.7

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

. . . . . . . . ..- ------ -------- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

● Inctudes those who did not report their source or type of aid.

-- Too feu cases for a rel iab~e estimate.

NOTE : Percentages are based on undupt i cated counts of aided undargracbstes.

Details may not aid to tota(s due to rounding.

SWRCE : U. S. Department of Educat i on, Nat i ona I Center for Education Statist its,

1987 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study.
Table A.4.3--Aided undergraduates enro( ted in the fal 1 of 1986, by source and type of award, attendance status, and dependency statu s

------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------ . . . . . . ------ . . . . .

Aid auard by source and type of aid

-------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------- -

Peii, OFG, Other

Selected

GSL, Pen,

Aided Insti - GSL Stat e

student

Federal OFG, Stat e All

undergraduates tuti6n Private an d Pel( gran t grant s Stat e

characteristi c

gran t other

(in thousands) Tota l GSL gran t gran t Pet 1 gran t (Pos) (OFG) grant s (GPOS) awardsl

----------------- --------------- ---------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -

Percent

Tota 1 5,431

Attendance status

Full-tim e 4,200

Half-time or more 845

Less than half-time 386

Dependency status

Dependent 3,366

Independent 2,064

Tota ( NA

Attendance status

4 Fu(l-time N

NA

Half-time or more NA

Less than half-time NA

Dependency status

Dependent NA

Independent NA

-------------- -------- -..----.....---.-- -

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

------. -

10.7

11.3

12.5

0.0

11.8

8.9

S2,587

2,587

2,605

-.

2,472

2,912

. . . . . . ..-

11.4 7.6 5.8 4.7 3.6 3.1

10.0 6.3 4.5 3.7

11.9 1::: 6.0 7.8 4.3 :::

26.2 41.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.8

13.8 5.2 3.9 3.3 2.9

7.6 11.5 9.0 7.0 4,7 ;;7

Average award for fu[ l-time aided undergraduates2

S1 ,835 S1 ,658 S4,904 $1,554 S3, 076 S3, 090

1,835 1,658 4,904 1,554 3,076 3,090

831 985 4,139 1,255 1,798 2,057

474 532 -- --

. - 1,140

1,922 1,611 4,582 1,471 2,W6 3,116

1,207 1,810 5,138 1,636 3,181 3,063

----------------- . . . . . . . . . . ------------------ . . . . . . . . . . . .

1 Inc~udes those who did not report the source or type of award,

2 Pertains to fu([-tinw status unless other~ise indicated.

-- Too few cases for a reliable estimate.

NOTE : Percents are based on undupl i cated counts of aided undergraduates.

Detai ts may not aid to totals due to rounding.

SOURCE : U. S. Department of Education, Nat iona[ Center for Educat ion Statistics,

1987 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study.

2.4 2 48.7

2.3 2.3 54.0

36.7

::? ::: 18.0

2.8 52.9

1.7 H 41.7

$995 S5 ,270 NA

W5 5,270 NA

840 4,675 NA

.- -- NA

936 4,988 NA

1,432 5,545 NA

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -----
Table A4.4--Aided mdergreduatee enrol led in the fat 1 of 1986, by swrce and type of award, age, academic Level, and grade point averag e

. . . ----------- -----.-- -.----- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Aid award by source and type of aid

-------- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ----

Selected Pe[l, OFG, Other GSL, Pelt,

studen t Aided Insti - GSL Stat e Federal OFG, Stat e

characteristi c undergraduates

Al{

tution Private an d Pelt gran t

. . ..--- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..!...E!.. !.!.! . . . ..!... -.--! !!.! . . . ..!.. ! . . ..?!! - . . . . . ..! . . . . ...!?.?........!!?...!!.?!.......!!!?!.-.-!!!?!

grant s Stat e gran t other

Total

Age

23 or younger

24-29

30 or older

Academic level

Contact hour

Freshmen

Sophcsnore

Junior

Senior

Grade point average2

2.3 or las s

2.4-2.8

2.9-3.3

3.4-4.0

Tota(

A23 or yocstger

24-29

30 or older

Academic level

Contact hwr

Freshman

Sophomore

Junior

Senior

Grade point average2

2.3 or less

2.4-2.8

2.9-3.3

3.4-4.0

5,431 100.0

3,571 100.0

855 100.0

1,004 100.0

387 100.0

1,727 100.0

1,307 100.0

892 100.0

1,118 100.0

1,115 100.0

1,:: :;::;

718 100.0

NA NA

NA MA

NA NA

NA NA

NA NA

NA NA

NA NA

NA NA

NA NA

NA NA

NA NA

NA NA

NA NA

Percent

10.7 11.4 7.6 5.8 4.7 3.6 3.1

11.3 12.2 4.0 4.1 3.1

11.1 ;:; 3.5

8.0

::;

1!:: 1::; 6.0 ::; 5.1 6.5

16.3 3.8 22.2 8.4

9.9

4.5

1;:2 7.6 6.0 5.4 ::; 3.0

10.1 3.7

1;:;

4.7 3.4

10.7 ::: 3.6 ::! 3.4

10.8 12.4

2.6

9.4 4.2 3.4 1.7 2.8

11.4 8.9 4.9 6.3 5.3 4.6

10.7 4.2 4.1

10.1

3.9 :::

1::; ;:; 3.9 4.1

8.2 14.9 15.3 3.1 3.3 ::: ::;

Average ● ward for futl-time aidad mdergrtitea

S2,587 $1,835 S1,658 S4,904 S1,554 S3,076 S38090

2,505 1,911 1,609 4,667 1,538

2,705

3,048

1,677

2,876

1,931 5,043 1,641 3,231

3,025

3,916

1,044 1,672 5,480 1,511 3,062 2,760

3,417 3,052 5,819 1,698 48795

2,464

2,819

1,?4 1,207 4,685 1,560

2,517

38045

1,585

2,598

1,516 4,4W 1,431

2,417

2,928

2,466

3,011

1,895 4,271 1,628

2,577 2,332

2,908 3,778

1,985 4,546 1,540 38223 3 # 493

2,381 2,079 1,555 4,485 1,582

2,540

3,293

2,049

2,270

1,W6 4,245 1,357 2,820

2,445

3,225

1,778 1,315 4,632 1,640

2,659

2,8W

1,896

3,693

1,433 5,327 1,556 3,334 --

2.4

2.6

::;

::;

2.6

2.6

1.7

2.3

2.8

2.0

2.9

$995

931

. -

1,520

. -

945

833

989

1,062

1,014

914

1,::

2.0

;::

2.5

H

2.2

1.9

1.8

2.3

2.6

:::

S5, 270

5,154

5,624

5,353

5,643

5,271

5,112

5,214

5,411

5,1W

5,381

5,100

. .

----------- ------ . . . . . . . . . . . ----------------------- . . . . . . . . . . . . ----------------------------- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ------ . . . . . . ...............

48.7

54.3

42.0

35.4

33.2

45.5

51.2

54.0

51.8

51.7

53.3

52.4

46.2

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

.-------- .

1 Includes those ho did not report the swrce or type of aid received.

2 Pertains to credit-hour students onty.

-- Too few cases for a re(iabte estimate.

NOTE : Percentages are based on unduplicated comts of aided undergraduates.

Detai(s may not aid to totals due to rounding.

SCNJRCE : U. S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,

1987 Nationa( Postsecondary Student Aid Study.
Table A4.5--Aided undergraduates enrol ted in the fat 1 of 1986, by source and type of aid award, sex, and race/ethnicity

. -------------------------------- . . . . . . . . . . ----------------------------------------------------- --------------------- -------- . . . . . . . . --------- -

Aid award by source and type of aid

-------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -

Selected

Pen, OFG,

Aided

Other GSL, Pen,

lnsti - GSL Stat e

student

Federal OFG, Stat e A(l

undergraduates tution Private an d Pen

.-..: !:!!:!:::: !!!.. -----: !!-!! :!!:? !..:? :!!-- . ..!!! -----! !.!:. ---!! :?:.. --!!!. . . ..!.! ! . . ..--.!! .-----gi.;!---:;;;;. . ..-.! .;!-.. -:;;;;~:

Percent

lota~

Sex

Male

Female

5,431

2,392

3,039

2;$

698

394

4,025

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

MA

MA

MA

NA

NA

NA

MA

MA

10.7

11.1

10.3

4.9

6.9

:::

11.8

$2,58 7

2,600

2,575

. -

2,831

2,657

3,109

2,535

11.4 7.6 5.8 4.7 3.6 3.1

4.8

1.7

2.4

2.8

2.1

0.0

2.2

1.1

::;

S995

1,032

961

. .

. .

. .

. .

941

2.0 48.7

12.2 7.0 4.3 4.1 3.1

10.8 8.0 7.0 5.2 3.9

1.8

2.2

48.8

48.8

Race/ethnicity

American Indian

Asian American

Black, non-Hispani c

Hispanic

White, non-Hispani c

11.6 2.8 8.2 11.8 7.9

10.6 4.7 4.8 4.1 5.5

2.3

;:;

2.6

1.8

47.0

56.9

48.1

45.3

48.8

6.7 4.2 12.8 8.7

5.0 9.9 6.2 i::

1::: 8.6 4.2 3.8 2.6

Average aid award for ful 1- time undergraduates

Total S1,835 S1,658 S4,904 S1,554 S3,076

Sex

Male

Female

MA

MA

MA

S3,090

3,463

2,246

S5 ,270

5,236

5,292

NA

MA

MA

2,125 1,763 4,656 1,468 3,028

1,569 1,583 5,034 1 # 606 3,106

Race/ethnicity

American Indian

Asian American

Black, non-Hispani c

Hispanic

White, non-Hispani c

MA

NA

NA

NA

MA

MA

MA

MA

MA

NA

-- . . -- . . -. --

. .

2,143

- -

3,117

. . . . . . . . . ---

.-

2,261 -- 5,282 -- 2,772

2,592 2,090 5,071 1,597 3,378

2,009 -- 5,947 1,289 3,325

1,755 1,519 4,594 1.548 2.925

. .

5,645

5,545

5,123

----------------------- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ------------------ . ------- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..- .-------- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

● Inc(udes those uho did not report the source or type of aid received.

-- Too few cases for a retiable estimate.

NOTE : Percentages are based on unduplicated counts of aided undergraduates.

Oetai(s may not aid to totals due to rounding.

SOURCE : U. S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,

1987 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study.
Appendix B:

Technical notes
The 1987 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS) was conducted during

the 1986-87 school year after an extensive national field test in 1985-86. The full-scale

study involved 59,886 postsecondary students selected from 1,074 postsecondary

institutions.

1. Samde Desian

Students were selected for the 1987 NPSAS as the third stage in a three stage sample

design. The first stage of sampling consisted of selecting geographic areas based upon

three-digit ZIP code areas. The largest primary sampling units (PSUS) were selected with

certainty. Of the 361 PSUS in the universe, the 50 largest PSUS were included in the

sample with certainty. The remaining PSUS were stratified on the basis of the State in

which the PSU was located and 70 PSUS were selected with probability proportional to

their measure of size (i.e., the total number of students enrolled in postsecondary

education).

Institution samdinq

Once the 120 PSUS were selected, the second stage of the sample selection process

was institutions within selected PSUS. A total of 7,814 schools was identified in the 120

sample PSUs.

Institutions in these 120 PSUS were then classified into 10 strata for sample selection,

based upon the control of the institution (public, private, not-for-profit, and private,

for-profit) and type (highest degree awarded). Five-hundred and eight institutions were

large enough to be selected with certainty. The mmining institutions were sampled

within strata with probability proportional to the total enrollment in the institution.

A total of 1,342 institutions and branch campuses was selected. A special

supplemental sample was designed for New York State after the national sample of

schools had already been selected that added an additional 11 campuses and increased

the numbers of sample institutions to 1,353.

Ninety-two percent of the sampled institutions agredto participate in the study. When

participating institutions were weighted to reflect total enrollment, the final weighted

institutional response rate was 94.6 percent.

Student samdinq

The third stage of the sampling process was the selection of students within

77
participating institutions. institutions were asked foralist ofallstudents enrolled on or

about October 15, 1986. All students enrolled for courses for credit, in a degree or formal

award program, or in a vocational or occupationally specific program were eligible for

selection, including part-time and full-time students and aided and nonaided students.

If a student also was in a high school program, he/she was not eligible.

Students were stratified by level (undergraduate, graduate, and first-professional) and

systematically sampled, using a random start and a prespecified sampling rate that varied

by student level. Sampling rates for graduate and first-professional students were 3 to

7 times the rate for undergraduate students, resulting in a total student sample of 59,886.

The sample of undergraduate consisted as 34,544 students. The overall response rate

for the student questionnaire was 71.2 percent. Item nonresponse was not a significant

problem. Item response rates for almost all items was close to 100 percent for the items

used in this report The exeptions were for the number of credit hours and the

cumulative grade point average of undergraduates enrolled in the fall of 1986. For these

items the non-response rates were 7 percent. The average student response rate was

71 percent and ranged from the low 60s to the high 70s across selected classification

variables. Table B.1 provides more details. Table B.1 below gives record response rates

for the student mail questionnaire. The rates generally apply to all students rather than

just undergraduates.

Ii. Data Sources

The data in this report were obtained from multiple sources. Once a student sample

was identified at an institution, fall 1986 enrollment data on each sampled member were

obtained from administrative records from December 1986 through March, 1987. For

each sample member with a financial aid record, the aid record was obtained at this time

and was subsequently updated in the summer of 1987 at the end of the 1986-87 Federal

financial aid program fiscal year. These updated records reflected aid award status and

amounts for the entire 1986-87 school year.

In March, 1987, each of the 59,886 students sampled for the NPSAS was sent a

questionnaire to his/her school or local address as identified in the institution’s registration

records. After significant follow-up attempts were made by mail, all nonrespondents to

the mail survey were targeted for telephone interviews that encompassed all but five items

in the mail questionnaire. The overall response rate across all levels of students and

types and controls of institutions in the sample was 72 percent.

In addition to extensive editing of the student questionnaire data, a significant amount

of telephone follow-up to retrieve missing or out-of-range responses on 21 key items was

carried out. These key items included sources of financial support, education expense

items, items to define dependency status, and the financial condition variables for

78
students identified as independent. Over 14,000 students were contacted for data

retrieval.

Ill. Estimation Weiahts

The production of student-level estimates was accomplished in steps. First,

student-level estimates were obtained by using weights that reflected the probability of

a student’s being selected for the NPSAS sample. Since the student was selected in a

multistage manner, the student weight was the product of the reciprocals of the

probabilities of selection at each stage. For the student questionnaire, data nonresponse

adjustments were made for both institution nonresponse (that is, refusal to participate in

NPSAS) and student nonresponse.

A ratio adjustment technique was used to adjust for institution nonresponse. The

1986-87 Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) file was the source

that was used for the ratio adjustment; for institutions of higher education. For other

postsecondary institutions ones that could not be matched to the IPEDS file, a simple,

nonresponse adjustment factor (the inverse of the weighted-response rate within stratum)

was used.

To account for nonresponse on the student questionnaire, the initial student weight

(the product of the adjusted institution weight and the inverse of the probability of

selection of the student within the institution) was adjusted by the inverse of the weighted

student response rate. These student questionnaire weights were used to produce the

national estimates of the number of students by their characteristics presented in this

report.

Accuracv of estimates

The estimates in this report are subject to both sampling and nonsampling error.

Nonsampling error can be attributed to a number of sources: inability to obtain complete

information about all students in all schools in the sample (such as some students or

schools refused to participate, or students participated but answered only certain items);

ambiguous definitions; differences in interpreting questions; inability or unwillingness to

give correct information; mistakes in recording or coding data; and other errors of

collecting, processing, sampling, and estimating missing data.

Sampling error arises because a sample of individuals was selected from a

population and was used to make inferences about the population. Estimates derived

from one sample differ from estimates derived from another sample drawn from the same

79
population in the same way. These differences result from sampling variability. There are

a number of methods for computing estimates of the sampling variability of the statistics

produced from complex sample designs (that is, multistage, stratified, cluster samples

with varying probabilities of selection) such as that used for NPSAS. For this study,

variance estimates were produced using a formula which closely approximates the above

design features, but which does not reflect adjustments for nonresponse. (The procedure

used is a SAS procedure, PROC CDCTAB, which is internal to NCES.) When comparing

two estimates, it has been assumed that the two estimates are independent. Often times

the assumption of independence is appropriate (e.g. in the comparison of the percent of

aid received by undergraduates at public and private institutions). Most of the remaining

times the estimates are positively correlated, resulting in a variance estimate that is

conservatively large. All statements of comparison made in the report have been tested

at the alpha = 0.05 level. When making multiple comparisons among three or more

means, the test statistics have been adjusted using the Bonferonni procedure to limit the

probability of making at least one type I error (a flase rejection of the null hypothesis) to

alpha = 0.05 or le&.

estimates presented in

.

Tables B._2 through 6.6 cont~n standard errors-for selected

this report.

80
Table B.I--Response rates for student questionnaire mailout based on

student characteristics from the institutional records data

Tvve Control

Doctoral Public 75.5

Doctoral

4-year

4-year

2-year

2-year

2-year

Less than 2-year

Less than 2-year

Less than 2-year

Private, not-for-profit

Public

Private, not-for-profit

Publi c

Private, not-for-profit

Private, for-profit ,

public

Private, not-for-profit

Private, for-profit

71.4

74.5

76.5

65.6

67.8

70.9

67.9

62.3

60.7

Ai.dedness Dependence

Aided Dependent 78.9

Aided Independent 70.6

Nonaided 23 or younger 71.4

Nonaided 24 or older 66.4

Race

Black 65.5

White 73.3

Hispanic 65.7

Other 67.4

Unknown 68.9

Sex

Male 71.0

Female 71.4

Unknown 63.7

Leve 1

Clock hour 66.0

Undergraduate 71.2

Graduate 73.9

First-professiona l 70.6

Unclassified 73.0

Attendance Status

Full-time 74.6

Part-time 66.1

Unknown 64.7

81
Analvtic methodology

All univariate comparisons cited in the text of this report were significant at or

beyond the .05 level as determined by pairwise t-tests for independent samples. The

level of significance used in making comparisons was adjusted for the number of

comparisons made within a “family” of comparisons. Adjustments were made using a

Bonferroni adjustment to preclude the possibility of some comparisons being significant

by chance alone.

All entries in the tables were based on at least 30 unweighed cases. Percentage

distributions developed for this report and total numbers of students by individual

characteristics were based on the number of cases for whom data were available for the

variable(s) of interest.

IV. Variables Used in the Renort

With few exceptions definitions of the variables used in this reporl may be found in

the NPSAS codebook documentation. The following represents variable definitions for

those not found in the codebook.

Private aid = sum of oths_aid and emp_aid.

Federal grant aid = sum of fgrt_aid and fotypaid.

Federal work aid = sum of fworkaid and fasstaid.

State grant aid = sum of sgrt_aid and sotypaid.

Institution grant aid = sum of igrt_aid and iotypaid.

Institution work aid = sum of iworkaid and iasstaid.

Private grant aid = sum of ogrt_aid, ewaivaid, egrt_aid, and ootypaid.

Grant aid = sum of gran_amt, twaivaid, and otypeaid .

Work aid = sum of work_aid asst_aid.

Similar variables as those above except for amounts are similarly defined summing over

corresponding amounts. For example:

Private amount of aid = sum of oths_amt and emp_amt.

There are eight classification variables used in this report. Only the attendance status,

academic level, grade point average, and income and costs variables are not

documented in the codebook.

Attendance status:

If the record abstract form indicated that the student was a full-time student (R22= 1 )

82

1

I
this was accepted. If the record abstract form indicated that the student was a parttime student then the number of credit hours or contact hours the student took,

adjusted for the credit-hour system the student was under, were used to determine

whether the student was attending half time or more or less than half time. If

responses to the record abstract form attendance status item were missing and/or

data on the number of credit/contact hours were missing but the student received

one of the Federal awards requiring at least half-time attendance status then the

student was assigned a half-time or more attendance status.

Academic level:

The record abstract item, RI 9, and the student questionnaire item, S3, were used

to produce this variable.

Grade point average:

the variable VSTDR21 D was used to produce this variable.

Income and costs:

For income the two variables, dep_inc and ind_inc, were used. For costs the three

variables of tuitfees, std_room and std_misc, were summed to obtain the cost

variable. For student living at home the value of std_room was set to $1,100. The

weighted distribution of family income for dependent and independent students

were each divided into thirds to obtain the ranges used. The median value of the

weighted distribution of costs was used to divide costs into two ranges. The two

costs ranges and the three income ranges for dependent and independent students

were then used to create the income and cost variables.

Aid amounts and cost amounts for students either not enrolled in the spring or enrolled

in a different institution in the spring were “annualized.” That is, they were multiplied by

2 to put then on the same basis as that for students who attended the full year. Average

aid or costs amounts presented in this report therefore represent, within the limitations

of the data, awards and costs for the academic year.

83
Table B.2--Standard errors for aided undergraduates enro( led in the fa~ 1 of 1986 who were awarded aid from a

single source for the 1986-87 academic year and average award, by source and seiected student and

institutional characteristic

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -------- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Standard errora for average amounts

Selected Standard errors for percentages for ful 1- time undergraduates

student and . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

institutional Federal Institution Private State Federat Institution Private State

characteristic only only only only only only only only

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Total

Dependent students

Low costs, low income

Low costs, medium income

Low costs, high income

High costs, low income

High costs, medium income

High costs, high income

Independent students

Low costs, tow income

Low costs, medium income

Low costs, high income

High costs, low income

High costs, medium income

High costs, high incc+ne

Control of institution

Public

Private, not-for-profit

Private, for-profit

Type of institution

Public

4-year doctoral

Other 4-year

2-year

Less than 2-year

Private, not-for-profit

4-year doctoral

Other 4-year

2-year

Less than 2-year

Private, for-profit

2-year or more

Less than 2-year

1.00

2.13

1.62

1.50

2.14

1.46

1.28

2.16

2.04

1.82

1.93

2.91

2.44

1.12

0.93

1.94

1.54

1.52

1.43

4.05

0.72

1.43

3.37

9.92

3.05

2.40

0.47

1.28

1.93

2.16

0.74

0.72

0.91

1.12

1.35

1.30

0.90

0.44

1.97

0.71

0.85

0.38

0.77

0.81

1.43

5.46

0.81

1.17

4.89

1.58

0.35

0.55

0.35

0.78

0.79

1.50

0.24

0.32

0.32

0.69

1.08

2.15

0.59

0.63

1.64

0.49

0.58

0.64

0.62

0.55

1.01

1.81

0.90

0.75

1.01

1.85

0.44

0.95

0.18

0.35

0.53

0.93

0.40

0.35

0.56

0.62

0.74

0.82

0.46

0.23

0.84

0.26

0.44

0.14

0.37

0.42

0.49

1.59

0.35

0.72

1.51

1.81

0.18

0.16

66.4

125.9

103.7

69.2

108.5

118.0

53.4

183.7

146.6

200.7

209.1

223.0

134.0

56.6

83.3

92.0

69.5

52.9

134.1

256.3

130.8

143.7

129.5

460.2

96.2

94.5

81.1

378.6

87.8

79.4

273.3

182.5

136.8

. .

257:8

-.

. .

713.0

87.9

168.2

429.9

158.2

71.3

134.8

. .

293.8

193.7

229.5

. .

549:0

177.8

261.4

204.7

115.8

. .

356.0

313.1

. .

371:i

. .

. .

. .

99.9

254.9

678.6

235.3

157.8

114.7

. .

465.2

638.7

. .

-.

. .

108.7

. .

117.3

271.2

208.6

142.5

151.9

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

108.4

179.5

. .

136.3

232.1

. .

. .

310.1

226.5

405.9

. .

. .

. .

84
I

Table B.2. -Standard errors for aided undergraduates enrol led in the fall of 1986 who were awarded aid from a

single source for the 1986-87 academic year and average award, by source and se(ected student and

institutional characteristic--Continued

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -------- . . . . . . . . -------- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Standard errors for average amounts

Selected Standard errors for percentages for ful 1- time undergraduates

student and . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ------ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

institutional Federal Institution Private State Federal Institution Private State

characteristic only only on(y only on(y only only only

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Attendance status

Fu( l-time 1.07

Half-time or more 2.27

Less than half - time 1.67

Dependency status

Dependent 1.00

Independent 1.43

Age

23 or younger 1.08

24 . 29 1.90

30 or older 1.43

Academic 1 eve 1

Contact 3.76

Freshmen 1.14

Sophomores 1.38

Juniors 1.48

Seniors & 5th yr. 1.12

Grade point average

2.3 or Less 1.54

2.5 TO 2.7

3.0 TO 3.3

1.38

1.28

3.5 TO 4.0 1.45

Sex

Males 1.15

Females 1.27

Race/ethnicity

American Indians 4.37

Asian Americans 2.73

Black, non-Hispanics 2.16

Hispanics 2.83

Uhite, non-Hispanics 1.06

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,.

0.39

1.27

2.29

0.61

0.59

0.53

1.05

0.92

1.28

0.87

0.77

1.02

0.72

0.77

0.72

0.81

0.96

0.73

0.56

8.65

1.69

0.84

1.29

0.60

-. . . . . .

0.20

1.04

2.76

0.29

0.83

0.24

0.93

1.27

0.91

0.53

0.59

0.68

0.66

0.62

0.54

0.56

1.27

0.50

0.44

2.38

1.01

0.77

0.84

0.41

. . . . . . . .

0.19

0.55

0.66

0.22

0.36

0.20

0.48

0.47

0.97

0.36

0.42

0.33

0.28

0.35

0.56

0.31

0.75

0.29

0.21

3.15

0.34

0.27

0.55

0.22

. . . . . . . . .

66.4

. .

. .

60.3

107.3

56.4

122.2

182.2

199.6

98.0

99.8

93.2

97.8

102.4

97.2

104.2

178.6

76.8

84.6

439.5

231.4

140.8

298.3

55.4

. . . . . . . . . .

81.1

. .

. .

81.8

259.2

88.1

310.5

233.3

312.8

100.0

156.0

174.6

165.8

183.3

190.4

120.1

189.2

113.8

89.7

. .

289.3

255.3

333.6

82.3

. . . . . . ----

177.8

. .

. .

128.9

601.2

132.3

349.1

697.4

955.0

165.5

196.1

263.6

408.5

481.0

400.1

262.8

180.8

194.3

241.4

. .

. .

442.2

. .

171.6

. . . . . . . . .

108.7

. .

. .

3%;

110.5

. .

328.1

. .

174.4

140.0

154.4

204.7

151.4

207.3

208.6

209.3

136.3

132.6

. .

. .

. .

. .

112.4

. . . . . .

-- Too few cases for reliable estimates

85
Table B.3- -Standard errors for aided undergraduates enrol led in the fa~ I of 1986 who were

awarded one of three multiple-source awards and average aid award, by source of award,

and selected student and institutional characteristi c

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . --------- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Selected

student and

institutiona~

characteristi c

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Total

Dependent students

Low costs, low income

Low costs, medium income

Low costs, high income

High costs, low incom e

High costs, medium income

High costs, high income

I ndepandent students

Low costs, low income

Low costs, mediun income

Low costs, high income

High costs, low income

High costs, medium income

High costs, high income

Control of institutio n

Public

Private, not-for-profi t

Private, for-profit

Type of institution

Public

4.year doctoral

Other 4-year

2-year

Less than 2-year

Private, not-for-profi t

4-year doctoral

Other 4-year

2-year

Less than 2-year

Private, for-profi t

2-year or more

Less than 2-year

Standard errors for percentages

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Federal Federal & Federal,

& state institution state, and

oniy onl y inst. onl y

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

0.61

1.77

1.88

0.68

1.19

1.16

0.41

1.81

1.97

0.85

1.75

1.90

1.23

0.86

0.88

1.53

1.10

1.62

1.43

8.40

0.84

1.43

2.74

12.03

2.84

1.74

0.33

0.81

0.63

0.69

0.67

0.85

0.64

1.24

1.02

0.79

1.04

1.14

1.24

0.37

0.77

0.44

0.58

0.33

0.76

1.72

1.10

1.20

2.32

0.71

0.67

0.60

0.40

0.73

0.54

0.38

1.04

1.24

0.58

0.76

0.73

0.36

1.11

0.97

0.70

0.32

0.81

0.24

0.60

0.47

0.49

0.48

0.79

1.38

2.31

1.21

0.46

0.25

Standard errors for average awards

for full-time undergraduates

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Federal Federal & Federa L,

& state institution state, and

onl y onl y inst. onl y

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

69.6

138.0

160.2

134.7

131.5

111.7

190.4

178.6

160.8

251.4

158.2

238.3

399.9

74.8

124.9

230.1

91.7

108.4

118.5

281.0

159.9

168.2

231.5

438.0

284.7

217.2

168.9

443.1

364.6

520.0

241.6

214.0

220.8

351.6

437.8

970.4

393.8

321.1

774.2

136.2

213.6

568.2

158.9

197.9

370.0

. .

232.6

323.1

577.1

. .

756.4

748.0

148.3

582.9

356.8

. .

245.1

206.3

236.7

. .

719.1

377:8

438.4

435.2

162.3

134.0

. .

131.9

204.0

. .

. .

243.1

180.2

593.7

. .

. .

. .

86
Tabte B.3--Standard errors for aided undergraduates enrol ted in the fal 1 of 1986 who were

awarded one of three multiple-source awards and average aid award, by source of award,

and selected student and insti tut iona( characterist ic. -Cent inued

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Standard errors for average awards

Selected Standard errors for percentages for ful 1 -time undergraduate s

student and . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ------ . . . . . .

institutiona l Federal Federal & Federal, Federal Federal & Federal,

characteristi c & state institution state, and & state institution state, and

only onl y inst. onl y onl y onl y inst. onl y

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Attendance status

Full-time 0.68

Half-time or more 1.80

Less than half-time 0.08

Dependency status

Dependent 0.75

Independent 0.89

Age

23 or younger

24 - 29

30 or older

0.72

1.15

1.11

Academic 1 eve L

Contact 2.16

Freshmen 0.88

Sophomores 0.93

Juniors 0.86

Seniors & 5th yr. 0.74

Grade point average

2.3 or less 0.94

2.5 TO 2.7 1.25

3.0 T03.3 1.07

3.5 T04.O 0.85

Sex

Ma ~ es 0.66

Fema 1 es 0.79

Race/ethnicity

American Indians 4.73

Asian Americans 1.60

Black, non-Hispanics 1.57

Hispanics 2.28

Uhite, non-Hispanics 0.74

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

-- Too few cases for reliable estimates

0.39

0.88

0.31

0.46

0.50

0.47

0.52

0.62

0.61

0.46

0.60

0.69

0.59

0.69

0.77

0.57

0.65

0.42

0.37

2.73

1.42

0.86

0.84

0.36

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

0.49

0.45

0.73

0.51

0.37

0.55

0.40

0.40

0.37

0.40

0.64

0.67

0.51

0.65

0.78

0.57

0.64

0.47

0.44

1.80

1.07

0.59

0.82

0.48

,. . . . . .

69.6

. .

. .

69.3

122.1

71.0

181.1

157.8

483.0

115.7

87.1

98.7

137.4

98.8

140.8

118.2

188.9

92.5

82.3

. .

201.4

161.3

174.1

73.2

168.9

. .

. .

175.0

241.0

164.0

377.3

399.8

848.1

243.2

204.7

223.1

225.1

294.7

279.3

225.3

218.0

246.7

145.5

. .

608.8

390.6

433.7

171.1

148.3

. .

. .

150.2

256.4

147.9

331.3

536.1

. .

228.7

149.9

232.5

258.7

217.1

213.2

226.3

293.3

183.2

170.2

. .

499.6

463.9

472.8

157.5

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

87
I

Table B.4- -Standard errors for aided undergraduates enrot led in the fal 1 of 1986 who were awarded aid f o r

the 1986-87 academic year and average aid award, by type of award and selected student and

institutional characteristic

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Standard errors for average awards

Standard errors for percentages for ful 1- time undergraduates

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Selected Grants, Grants,

student and 1 oans, Grants ( oans, Grants

institutional Grants nork - & work- Grants work- & work.

characteristics Grants & 1 oans Loans study study Grants & 1 oans Loans study study

oniy oniy only only only only onty only onty only

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Total

Dependent students

Low costs, Low income

Low costs, medium income

Low costs, high income

High costs, tow income

High costs, medium income

High costs, high income

1 ndependent students

Low costs, low income

Low costs, medium income

Low costs, high income

High costs, low income

High costs, medium income

High costs, high income

Control of institution

Public

Private, not-for-profit

Private, for-profit

Type of institution

Public

4-year doctoral

Other 4-year

Z-year

Less than 2-year

Private, not-for-profit

4-year doctoral

Other 4-year

2-year

Less than 2-year

Private, for-profit

2-year or more

Less than 2-year

0.75

2.24

2.16

1.94

1.38

1.17

0.89

2.39

2.31

1.88

1.61

2.07

2.50

1.33

0.98

1.46

1.01

2.11

1.80

8.63

1.57

1.68

3.28

7.85

1.19

2.28

0.68

1.15

1.03

0.98

1.41

1.18

0.72

2.09

2.04

1.00

1.84

2.78

2.17

0.82

0.93

2.49

0.84

1.40

1.25

9.43

1.30

1.28

1.90

7.39

1.42

3.47

0.44

0.73

1.37

1.78

0.49

1.08

1.13

0.64

0.95

1.23

0.54

1.45

1.89

0.56

0.60

1.83

0.94

0.98

0.58

3.05

0.72

0.91

2.29

3.11

1.61

2.30

0.44

0.87

0.80

0.29

1.50

1.05

0.72

0.99

0.70

0.15

1.46

1.14

0.76

0.54

1.01

0.20

0.79

1.21

0.44

2.09

1.15

1.66

1.95

1.58

0.52

0.13

0.23

0.76

0.56

0.60

0.56

0.41

0.36

1.18

1.08

0.55

0.59

0.95

0.50

0.31

0.41

0.09

0.51

0.59

0.58

1.27

0.28

0.75

0.51

1.24

0.18

0.09

74.2

116.2

85.0

64.0

128.4

153.5

133.1

109.7

139.3

210.1

241.4

261.3

363.1

49.2

139.5

235.2

80.9

74.7

97.2

237.1

192.8

169.0

166.3

. .

177.2

338.1

76.0

125.2

129.3

270.7

106.6

108.5

170.0

157.1

234.1

318.6

137.7

149.6

219.6

64.6

132.9

81.7

67.6

71.6

207.2

392.2

181.2

174.7

221.0

319.6

136.3

96.7

40.7

420.8

94.6

58.7

180.6

87.4

63.5

304.6

170.8

165.5

371.8

194.9

127.2

51.2

85.2

90.5

57.4

53.4

212.6

. .

102.7

114.4

93.4

196.7

64.0

154.0

207.6

328.7

388.3

. .

284.8

281.3

239.3

299.2

520.5

. .

303.2

364.4

. .

99.5

248.9

. .

164.4

154.6

268.3

. .

293.6

340.7

752.8

. .

. .

. .

165.5

362.0

500.7

645.0

392.9

316.6

415.1

407.9

444.6

542:;

. .

. .

149.5

431.5

. .

300.9

151.5

232.7

. .

577.2

688.5

. .

. .

. .

. .

88
I

Table B.4--Standard errors for aided undergraduates enrolled in the fall of 1986 who were ewerded aid for

the 1986-87 academic year and average aid award, by type of award and selected student and

institutional characteristic--Continued

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Standard errors for average awards

Standard errors for percentage for full-time undergraduates

. . . . ---- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Selected Grants, Grants,

student and loans, Grants 1 oans, Grants

institutional Grants work- & work- Grants work- & work

characteristics Grants & Loans Loans study study Grants & loans Loans study study

only onty only only oniy only only only onty only

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ------ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Attendance status

Ful (-time 0.85

Half-time or more 1.80

Less than half-time 1.75

Dependency status

Dependent 0.83

Independent 1.19

Aae

‘~~ ~rz;ounger

30 or older

0.82

1.98

1.61

Academic level

Contact 3.67

Freshmen 1.49

Sophomores 1.20

Juniors 0.87

Seniors & 5th yr. 0.91

Grade point average

2.3 or less 1.37

2.5 TO 2.7 1.15

3.0 T03.3 1.10

3.5 T04.O 1.33

Sex

Males 1.02

Females 0.85

Race/ethnicity

American Indians 5.64

Asian Americans 2.54

BLack, non-Hispanics 1.45

Hispanics 2.76

Uhite, non-Hispanics 0.75

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

0.72

1.57

0.60

0.55

1.19

0.65

1.67

1.50

3.14

1.20

0.92

0.96

0.86

1.10

0.94

1.12

0.93

0.72

0.90

3.84

2.18

1.40

3.17

0.59

. . . . .

0.50

0.99

0.81

0.52

0.52

0.45

0.97

0.80

1.85

0.63

0.60

0.82

0.74

0.88

0.7.4

0.73

0.77

0.63

0.47

2.98

1.18

0.44

0.88

0.55

-. ..-. . .

0.56

0.39

0.00

0.55

0.43

0.58

0.58

0.44

0.63

0.53

0.62

0.65

0.54

0.69

0.68

0.57

0.52

0.47

0.50

1.28

1.01

0.88

0.85

0.52

. ..-.

0.26

0.42

0.75

0.26

0.37

0.27

0.65

0.39

0.46

0.31

0.45

0.46

0.47

0.39

0.65

0.57

0.42

0.25

0.31

4.24

1.44

0.63

1.23

0.23

. . . . . . .

74.2

. .

. .

71.6

131.4

72.3

181.0

144.8

320.1

83.6

93.1

121.8

121.0

100.6

127.6

105.4

130.1

97.4

73.4

425.8

263.0

117.9

183.5

78.0

. . . . . . . .

76.0

. .

. .

92.2

100.5

83.2

110.0

167.8

105.4

109.7

87.4

127.3

115.2

107.3

131.0

99.0

153.8

96.5

80.6

589.2

247.4

129.4

177.9

81.8

. . . . . . . .

40.7

. .

. .

43.6

82.5

46.8

95.1

136.9

156.3

61.3

90.3

98.3

64.6

107.9

104.3

76.1

102.5

52.3

60.1

. .

237.8

120.4

217.9

41.9

. . . . . . . .

215.2

. .

. .

233.2

221.2

223.1

263.1

451.2

. .

221.4

191.5

234.3

322.9

242.5

297.1

277.2

318.0

249.0

201.0

512:;

404.4

554.4

203.9

. . . . . . . .

165.5

. .

. .

177.6

270.1

181.8

476.8

536.1

. .

267.0

138.0

247.2

345.0

197.1

237.0

304.0

402.4

240.5

183.2

523:;

332.4

392.8

221.4

. . . . . .

-- Too feu cases for reliable estimates

89
Table B.S. -Standard errors for aided undergraduates enrol ted in the fal 1 of 1986 who were awarde d

one of nine multiple-component aid awards for the 1986-87 academic year and average sward,

by award and selected student and institutional characteristi c

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Selected Pen, OFG, Other GSL, Pen,

student and Insti - GSL Stat e Federai OFG, Stat e

institutiona l tution Private an d Pen gran t grant s Stat e gran t

. . . . . ..~ . . . . . . . . ..~ . . . . . . ..--- ~.~----g . . ..--. -9 . . ..-.-...::.. -g~:::--- ..:~:y~--- ..-:o~yf ---::: ~::--- .: f~::f --

Total

Dependent students

Low costs, low income

Low costs, mediun income

Low costs, high income

High coats, low income

High costs, medium income

High costs, high income

Independent students

Low costs, low income

Low costs, medium income

Lou costs, high income

High costs, low incc+ne

High costs, medium income

High costs, high income

Controt of institutio n

Public

Privata, not-for-profit

Private, for-profi t

Type of institution

Publi c

4.year doctoral

Other 4-year

2.year

Less than 2.year

Private, not. for-profi t

k-year doctorai

Other 4-year

2.year

Less than 2.year

Private, for-profi t

2.year or more

Less than 2.year

0.42

0.62

1.15

1.43

0.44

0.96

1.09

0.58

0.90

1.10

0.52

1.42

1.63

0.53

0.48

1.53

0.86

0.83

0.63

3.27

0.56

0.76

1.88

2.56

1.52

2.02

0.45

1.09

1.70

1.70

0.62

0.57

0.78

1.15

1.30

1.26

0.72

0.38

1.81

0.67

.0.62

0.30

0.62

0.71

1.38

5.39

0.89

0.86

3.15

1.48

0.25

0.45

0.34

0.78

0.79

1.44

0.23

0.32

0.34

0.69

1.07

2.14

0.59

0.64

1.64

0.48

0.59

0.64

0.63

0.56

1.02

1.81

0.92

0.76

1.01

1.85

0.44

0.95

0.50

0.85

0.49

0.08

1.52

0.38

0.06

1.17

0.99

0.26

1.53

2.34

0.51

0.34

0.26

2.26

0.73

0.44

0.40

2.97

0.20

0.37

1.74

7.97

2.54

2.85

0.31

1.10

0.43

0.39

0.76

0.32

0.03

1.93

1.38

0.39

1.26

0.92

0.59

0.47

0.12

0.54

0.49

0.55

1.08

2.98

0.17

0.11

0.97

0.51

0.50

0.81

0.36

1.37

0.54

0.00

0.71

0.24

0.00

1.22

1.65

0.11

0.92

1.09

0.35

0.51

0.33

0.65

0.17

1.15

0.97

0.20

0.48

0.47

0.99

6.15

1.04

0.87

0.24

0.55

0.64

0.50

0.24

0.31

0.36

0.76

0.79

1.32

0.29

0.53

0.86

0.38

0.12

0.43

0.28

0.38

0.87

3.64

0.20

0.13

0.25

2.52

0.32

0.61

0.16

0.35

0.54

0.83

0.39

0.29

0.55

0.53

0.73

0.68

0.40

0.21

0.79

0.24

0.44

0.13

0.29

0.44

0.38

1.49

0.34

0.73

1.51

1.00

0.18

0.15

0.17

0.57

0.47

0.00

0.49

0.23

0.04

0.68

0.57

0.11

0.92

0.75

0.53

0.22

0.17

0.45

0.22

0.36

0.47

0.00

0.16

0.26

0.52

2.54

1.03

0.39

90
Table B.5- -Standard errors for aided undergraduates enrol ted in the fall of 1986 who were awarded

one of nine multiple-component aid awards for the 1986-87 academic year and average award,

by award and selected student and institutional characteristic--Continued

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Setected Pen, OFG, Other GSL, Pen,

student and Insti - GSL State Federa 1 OFG, State

institutional tution Private and Pe(l grant grants State grant

--. ---:ha:::::~:::::.. -.--- . .. fs. ----9 ::~:--. -9y~::----::: !---9 :::: -.---: ~f:~------:y~y~ -.. g::;::.. -.: G~f:f --

Attendance status

Full-time

Half-time or more

Less than half-time

0.44

0.97

0.00

0.40

1.11

1.95

0.55

0.57

0.51

1.08

0.76

1.22

0.93

0.61

0.79

0.59

0.81

0.52

0.61

1.05

0.69

0.46

5.84

1.43

0.69

1.19

0.57

. . . . .

0.19

1.04

2.76

0.29

0.82

0.24

0.93

1.26

0.91

0.52

0.59

0.67

0.66

0.61

0.53

0.55

1.26

0.50

0.43

2.38

1.01

0.77

0.84

0.41

. . . . . . . .

0.53

1.25

0.00

0.39

0.76

0.48

0.83

0.72

2.39

0.73

0.44

0.41

0.46

0.76

0.47

0.51

0.54

0.36

0.70

2.56

1.74

1.66

1.90

0.33

. ..-

0.34

0.91

0.00

0.42

0.93

0.00

0.17

0.72

1.73

0.18

0.55

0.17

0.71

0.99

1.08

0.51

0.37

0.32

0.33

0.28

0.70

0.43

0.55

0.38

0.26

1.33

1.24

0.64

0.90

0.27

0.16

0.46

0.66

0.20

0.39

0.00

Dependency status

Oependent

Independent

0.50

0.52

0.30

0.60

0,37

0.53

0.20

0.31

0.16

0.32

Age

23 or younger

24 . 29

30 or older

0.44

0.83

0.73

0.33

0.88

0.67

0.36

0.56

0.63

0.19

0.37

0.41

0.16

0.40

0.49

Academic level

Contact

Freshmen

Sophomores

Juniors

Seniors & 5th yr.

1.59

0.55

0.60

0.79

0.64

1.74

0.50

0.60

0.31

0.45

1.07

0.61

0.56

0.39

0.29

0.89

0.35

0.32

0.37

0.30

0.61

0.24

0.34

0.26

0.22

Grade point average

2.3 or less 0.75

0.65

0.68

0.81

0.67

0.63

0.51

0.58

0.67

0.51

0.38

0.38

0.30

0.44

0.28

0.61

0.33

0.40

0.34

0.29

2.5 102.7

3.0 TO 3.3

3.5 T04.O

Sex

Males

Females

0.18

0.22

0.54

0.47

0.36

0.33

0.36

0.43

0.26

0.20

Race/ethnicity

American Indians

Asian Americans

Black, non-Hispanics

Hispanics

White, non-Hispanics

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1.69

1.01

0.45

0.88

0.52

. . . . . . .

4.09

0.97

1.13

1.09

0.28

3.68

1.04

0.79

1.78

0.30

0.00

0.34

0.27

0.54

0.21

1.94

0.60

0.42

0.49

0.20

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

-- Too few cases for reliable estimates

91
I

Tabie 6.6- -Standard errors of average awards for aided undergraduates enrol led in the fal 1 of 1986 who were awarded

one of nine mu(tip~e-component aid awards for the 1986-87 academic year, by award and selected

student and institutiona~ characteristic

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Selected Pen, OFG, Other GSL, Pe(l,

student and lnsti - GSL State Federal OFG, State

institutional tution Private and Pelt grant grants State

. . . . . ..!.! ?...: !:!:: . . . . . . ..-.. Gs... -.. g!.?! . . ..g..? . . . ..!.! ! . . . ..?!? . . . . . . ..!!! ! . . . . . ..!!! ?... g!... ? . . . . ..!!o!!...

grant

Tota i

Dependent students

Low costs, low income

Low costs, medium income

Low costs, high income

High costs, tow income

High costs, medium income

High costs, high income

Independent students

Low costs, low income

Low costs, medium income

Low costs, high income

High costs, low income

High costs, medium income

High costs, high income

Control of institution

Public

Private, not-for-profit

Private, for-profit

Type of institution

Public

~-year doctoral

Other 4-year

2-year

Less than 2-year

Private, not-for-profit

4-year doctoral

Other .4-year

2-year

Less than 2-year

Private, for-profit

2-year or more

Less than 2-year

35.0

307.9

74.6

78.5

146.8

74.9

32.5

322.8

173.7

184.0

296.8

174.8

131.4

40.5

42.0

73.9

55.4

40.4

170.0

. .

65.9

45.7

118.1

. .

51.1

105.5

99.8

276.6

88.6

86.0

278.0

182.8

172.5

.-

.-

79.3

-.

. .

504.3

82.0

170.3

296.9

147.2

78.5

106.9

. .

348.2

171.2

189.8

. .

-.

345.1

127.4

192.5

174.8

100.2

. .

300.3

226.8

. .

. .

267.3

. .

. .

. .

64.8

260.1

333.0

167.6

150.7

92.0

. .

412.1

296.8

. .

. .

. .

. .

105.6

182.0

216.5

. .

140.2

223.0

.-

214.8

198.9

. .

219.7

165.1

.-

94.3

284.1

103.6

101.9

166.3

278.4

241.6

. .

208.3

460.1

469.3

133.1

129.5

49.9

71.8

. .

. .

145.5

. .

-.

97.1

106.7

. .

156.4

271.8

. .

51.0

139.0

120.2

63.3

47.7

84.3

131.7

. .

. .

. .

. .

212.9

160.5

89.7

170.7

. .

. .

197.0

. .

. .

97.6

177.4

. .

141.0

280.4

. .

79.5

199.0

199.5

171.8

79.2

119.8

. .

. .

268.5

238.0

. .

155.5

365.3

264.3

. .

-.

. .

. .

. .

703.9

. .

. .

521.6

. .

. .

. .

224.7

664.7

531.0

313.4

395.5

372.2

.-

1085.2

-.

. .

. .

-.

557.5

81.1

. .

98.0

118.0

164.7

156.5

96.0

.-

. .

. .

. .

. .

-.

70.8

151.0

. .

69.1

144.9

. .

-.

304.2

172.9

320.4

. .

-.

. .

120.2

244.4

. .

. .

171.9

205.9

. .

252.7

. .

. .

246.5

568.6

. .

97.7

249.3

312.0

204.0

103.3

159.7

. .

. .

229.7

. .

. .

339.6

. .

92

I
Table B.6--Standard errors of average awards for aided undergraduates enrolled in the fali of 1986 who were awarded

one of nine multiple-component aid awards for the 1986-87 academic year, by award and selected

student and institutional characteristic--Continued

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Selected

student and lnsti - GSL

institutional tution Private and

characteristic GSL grant grant Pen

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Pen, OFG, Other GSL, Pelt,

State Federal OFG, State

Pen grant grants State grant

grant (Pos) (OFG) grants (GPOS )

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Attendance status

Full-time

Half-time or more

Less than half-time

35.0

. .

. .

99.8

. .

. .

97.2

162.7

104.6

281.8

136.6

219.3

111.2

140.5

204.8

177.5

227.5

203.2

148.3

211.6

126.6

101.4

. .

462.6

260.9

316.6

99.0

127.4

. .

. .

102.7

417.8

99.0

366.8

432.9

647.3

116.2

155.1

244.9

286.9

250.5

415.5

143.0

170.5

153.3

172.3

. .

.-

431.7

. .

175.3

105.6

. .

. .

116.1

127.0

91.8

206.0

195.3

107.5

187.7

158.5

134.8

192.6

173.7

158.1

187.4

422.1

111.9

129.2

. .

341.7

144.7

273.3

103.0

49.9

. .

. .

60.4

74.4

55.0

121.4

102.0

161.1

106.9

85.5

113.5

80.0

86.6

113.3

120.5

176.4

67.5

64.3

. .

. .

87.8

145.1

56.3

89.7

. .

. .

105.0

122.4

93.3

238.8

145.7

351.4

164.3

117.1

119.7

160.9

153.2

159.3

149.8

212.1

120.0

119.4

. .

189.0

166.1

206.8

98.7

264.3

. .

. .

352.4

373.5

322.6

566.6

332.3

556.3

499.0

528.5

481.6

590.2

285.6

623.2

372.7

. .

330.2

304.6

. .

. .

444.7

. .

302.4

81.1

. .

. .

120.2

. .

. .

Dependency status

Dependent

Independent

36.0

77.9

80.6

215.8

113.4

158.3

Age

23 or younger

24 - 29

30 or older

“125.9

265.4

220.8

42.5

89.3

117.9

83.0

9999.0

210.0

Academic level

Contact

Freshmen

Sophomores

Juniors

Seniors & 5th yr.

76.0

57.7

72.2

85.0

57.7

9999.0

106.4

106.7

121.0

85.6

783.6

147.0

179.1

198.3

212.5

Grade point average

2.3 or les s

2.5 102.7

3.0 103.3

3.5 104.0

73.5

70.4

62.4

1%;

122.0

161.0

229.5

170.4

176.6

98.8 . .

Sex

Ma 1 es

Females

36.3

59.3

94.7

93.2

162.5

131.6

Race/ethnicity

American Indians

Asian Americans

Black, non-Hispanics

Hispanics

Uhite, non-Hispanics

. .

235.8

80.4

177.8

28.7

. .

. .

. .

. .

75.2

. .

. .

317.7

365.9

110.2

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

-- Too few cases for reliab(e estimates

93
Appendix C:

Components of the grants only award

95
Table Cl--Aided undergraduates vho received a

grant only ;vard, by the type

they received

of award

Components of the aid avard

Pen OFG

x

x x

x

-- -- - - ---- - --

x

x

---------- ---

x x

x x

x

x

x

------------ -

x

x

x x

x

State Inst. Priv.

grants grants grants

x

x

x

- ---- - ------ - - - - --- --- -- -.

x

x

x

x

x :

- - --- -- -- - -- --- -- - - - --- ---

x x

x

x x

x

------- - --- - ----- - - - -- - - -- - --- - - - - --- - --

x x x

x x x

x x x

x x x

x x x x x

----------- --

x

;

x

x x

---- -- ---- - -- ----- - ------ -

I xl x

x x

x ;

x x x

I xl x

Weighted

percent

11 4

7:6

4.7

3.6

301

------- ---

2.4

2.0

1.3

;::

------ ----

0.7

0.6

0.6

0.5

0.4

------- ---

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.2

- - - -- --- --

0.2

0.l

0.1

0.1

0.1

------ ----

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.0

0.0

------ - ------ - ----- - - -- - -- --- - - - -- - ------ ---- - --- --

X1X1 I I xl 0.0

Total 43.0

97
Appendix D:

All aid awards by source and type of aid

99
Table D.1--The aid awards constructed using the eight component

classification scheme, by component, unweighed

frequency, percent receiving the award, and the

average amount of the award for full-time students

Components

of the aid award

—

G

s

L

—

x

x

---I

P 0

EOF

LFS

LGH

—— —

x

x

----- --- - T

SI

GG

.—

x

------T

N

F

SP

HG

——

x

------

Unweighted Weighted

frequencies percent

1976 11.4

2433 10.7

1182 7.6

1517 5.8

701 4.7

------.------ - - - - - -- --

Average

award for

Cumulative full-time

percent students

11.4 $1,835

22.1 2,587

29.7 1,658

35.5 4,904

40.2 1,554

- - - - --- - ---------- .

x x x 601 3:6 43.8 3,076

x 554 3.2 47.0 1,700

x 421 3.1 50.1 3,090

x 431 2.4 52.4 995

x x x x 423 2.0 54.5 5,270

-- --- ---- -- --- --- --- --- ---------- -- -- - - - -- -- - - - -- ------ - ---------

x x 336 2.0 56.4 1,296

x x 521 1.9 58.3 4,165

x x x x 217 1.4 59.7 4,075

x x 196 1.3 61.0 2,688

x x x 308 1.2 62.2 3,608

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ------------ ------ --- ------ ------ ------ --

x 221 1.1 63.3 2,679

x x 262 1.1 64.4 3,366

x x x x x 204 1.0 65.4 6,091

x x 209 1.0 66.5 5,258

x x 266 1.0 67.4 4,617

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ------------ ---------- ------- - -- - ---- - - --

x x 199 0.9 68.3 4,964

x x x 299 0.8 69.1 7,069

x x x 180 0.8 69.9 5,555

x x 123 0.8 70.7 3,247

x x 200 0.8 71.5 3,255

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - ----------- ---------- ------ ----- ------ --

x x x 227 0.7 72.3 6,135

x x x 158 0.7 73.0 5,010

x x 128 0.7 73.7 2,922

x x 171 0.7 74.4 3,460

102 0.7 75.1 --

-- - -- - --- - - - - -- - -------- - --------------------- - --- --- - -- --- - - --- -

101
Table D.I--The aid awards constructed using the eight component

classification scheme, by component, unweighed

frequency, percent receiving the award, and the

average amount of the award for full-time students--

Continued

Components

of the aid award

------ -.---__-____--___-

Unweighted

frequencies

116

233

146

117

154

------- ----

x x 148

x x x x 142

x x 130

x x x x x x 175

x x x 126

Weighted

percent

0.7

0.7

0.6

0.6

0.6

.----- -----

Cumulative

percent

75.8

76.5

77.1

77.7

78.3

- -- --------

0.6 78.9

0.6 79.5

0.6 80.0

0.6 80.6

0.5 81.1

Average

award for

full-time

students

3,569

7,849

4,204

2,713

6,296

------ --

4,608

5,122

3,504

9,090

5,596

- - -- - --- - - - - -- - ------ - - - -- --- --- --- - - - ----- - _- --- ----- -- - - --- -- - -

x x x x 166

x x x x x 147

x x x 126

x x x x x 115

x x 83

0.5 81.7

0.5 82.2

0.5 82.7

0.5 83.1

0.4 83.6

6,052

7,159

3,737

6,327

4,953

- - -- -- --- ______ -- - ------------ ___ -- - ________ - - - -- --- -- --------- - -

x x 114

x x x 101

x x x x x 117

x x x 76

x x x x 99

0.4 84.0

0.4 84.4

0.4 84.8

0.4 85.2

0.4 85.6

4,165

5,234

8,618

2,678

7,799

x x 59 0.4

x x x 122 0.3

x x x 55 0.3

x x x x 115 0.3

x x x x 90 0.3

-- --- --- --- --- --- --- ___ - - -- -- - --- -- ------ ----,

x x x 101 0.3

x x x 41 0.3

x x 46 0.3

x x x x 69 0.3

x x 50 0.3

- - - - - - _- - -- - --- - - ___ -- - -- _______ - --- --- - - -- --,

85.9 3,301

86.3 5,696

86.6 3,972

86.9 7,757

87.2 5,426

--------- - - -- - - --- -

87.5 6,778

87.8 3,561

88.1 5,409

88.4 6,840

88.7 2,881

- --- ---- - - - - - - -- ---

102
Table D.I--The aid awards constructed using the eight component

classification scheme, by component, unweighed

frequency, percent receiving the award, and the

average amount of the award for full-time students--

Continued

—

G

s

L

—

x

---

Components

of the aid award

—

P

G

—

x

x

x

---

x x x

x x x x x

x x x x x

x x x

x x x x

Unweighed

frequencies

55

47

36

51

37

- - - --- - - ----

52

28

29

72

66

Weighted

percent

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.2

------ ----

Cumulative

percent

88.9

89.2

89.4

89.6

89.8

Average

award for

full-time

students

6,481

5,336

3,901

3,094

4,399

------- ------- -----

0.2 90.0 6,977

0.2 90.2 (*)

0.2 90.4 (*)

0.2 90.6 6,262

0.2 90.8 7,300

-- - - - - - - - - - -- - -- ----- - -- - ----- ___________ ----- - -- ---- - - -- - -- -- - - -

x x x

x x

x x x x x

x x x

x x x x

47

38

52

49

63

0.2 91.0 6,222

0.2 91.2 2,403

0.2 91.3 8,028

0.2 91.5 5,862

0.2 91.7 9,306

------ ------ ------ ------- ------- ------ ------ ------- ------- -------

x x x x 33 0.2 91.8 6,350

x x x 35 0.2 92.0 4,066

x x x 20 0.2 92.1 (*)

x x x x x 27 0.1 92.3 (*)

x x x 30 0.1 92.4 3,726

x x x 44 0.1 92.6 5,761

x x x

x x x

x x x x x x x

x x x x

x x x x

34

22

42

41

25

0.1 92.7 5,496

0.1 92.8 (*)

0.1 93.0 10,095

0.1 93.1 7,067

0.1 93.3 (*)

------ ------ -----_----------- ------ ______ ------- ------- ------- ---

x x x

x x x x x x

x x x x

x x x x x

x x x

38

28

23

23

27

-- - - - - -- -- - -- -- -- ------- -- - - ---- - --

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.1

------ ---

93.4 5,187

93.5 (*)

93.6 (*)

93.7 (*)

93.9 (*)

- --- - -- - - -- - - - - - - - -

103

I
Table D.1--The aid awards constructed using the eight component

classification scheme, by component, unweighed

frequency, percent receiving the award, and the

average amount of the award for full-time students--

Continued

Components

of the aid award

P o N

G E o F F

s L F s s I s

L L G H G G H

— — — — . — —

x x

x x x

x x x x

x x x x x

x x x x x

- - --- - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

—

P Unweighed

G frequencies

—

15

18

40

x 34

35

-----.---------

Weighted

percent

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.1

------ ----

Cumulative

percent

94.0

94.1

94.2

94.3

94.4

------- ----

Average

award for

full-time

students

(*)

(*)

7,732

8,691

6,780

- - -- -- - -

x x x 22 0.1 94.5 (*)

x x x x x 26 0.1 94.6 (*)

x x x 19 0.1 94.7 (*)

x x x 28 0.1 94.8 (*)

“x x x x x 19 0.1 94.9 (*)

-- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ------ ------ _----- ---- -------- --- - -- -- - - --

x x x x x x 34 0.1 95.0 9,581

x x x x 27 0.1 95.0 (*)

x x x 25 0.1 95.1 (*)

x x x x 16 0.1 95.2 (*)

x x x 20 0.1 95.3 (*)

-- --- --- --- --- --- --- ___ --- -- - - - ---- --------- - - - - - - - ----- -- - - - - - - -

x x 24 0.1 95.4 (*)

x x x 12 0.1 95.5 (*)

x x x x x 32 0.1 95.6 9,837

x x x x x x 20 0.1 95.6 (*)

x x x x 20 0.1 95.7 (*)

----- --- --- --- --- --- --- ------ ------ ------ ---- ------ - -- -- -- - --- ---

x x x x x x 22 0.1 95.8 (*)

x x x 11 0.1 95.9 (*)

x x 17 0.1 96.0 (*)

x x x x 16 0.1 96.0 (*)

x x 21 0.1 96.1 (*)

-. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - - - -_ -_----- ------_--- ----------- ---------

x x x x 8 0.1 96.2 (*>

x x 15 0.1 96.3 (*)

x x x x 17 0.1 96.3 (*)

x x x x x x 17 0.1 96.4 (*)

x x x 15 0.1 96.5 (*)

- - - - - ------ - - - --- -- - - ------- -- - - - - - - - - _- ------------ - - - - --- - - -- - -

104
I

I

!

Table D.I--The aid awards constructed using the eight component

classification scheme, by component, unweighed

frequency, percent receiving the award, and the

average amount of the award for full-time students--

Continued

Components

of the aid award

T

0

O F

FS

GH

—

[

N

F

s

E

—

x

x

[

P

G

.—

x

x

.

G

s

L

—

x

x

x

Average

award for

full-time

students

I

G

Unweighed

frequencies

20

24

13

11

21

Weighted

percent

‘umulative

percent

— —

x

x x

x

x

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.1

96.6

96.6

96.7

96.8

96.8

(*)

(*)

(*)

(*)

(*)

x

x x

----- .----- ------

x x

x

x x

------- ------ ------- ------ ------- ------- ------- -

x

x x

x

x x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

20 0.1

15 0.1

15 0.1

8 0.1

22 0.1

96.9

97.0

97.0

97.1

97.2

(*)

(*)

(*)

(*)

(*)

-----

x

x

x x

x x

.----- ------

x

x

x

x

x x

x x

x x

x x

x x

x

x

x

x

x

11 0.1

19 0.1

22 0.1

13 0.1

14 0.1

97.2

97.3

97.3

97.4

97.5

(*)

(*)

(*)

(*)

(*)

----- . - - --- - - - -- -- - -- -- ----- --- - -- - -- - - - -- - --- - - - - - --

x x

x

x

x x

x x

, -- - --

x

x x

x x

.- - -- -

x

x

x

x

x

14 0.1

10 0.1

12 0.1

17 0.1

14 0.0

97.5

97.6

97.6

97.7

97.7

(*)

(*)

(*)

(*)

(*)

x

I

x x

x

x

----- .----- ------ ------ ------ ------ ---_-- ------ ------ ------ ------

x x

x x

x

x

x

x

x x

x x

x

x x

x

x

x

x

x

x

16 0.0

15 0.0

11 0.0

8 0.O

6 0.0

97.8

97.8

97.9

97.9

98.0

(*)

(*)

(*)

(*)

(*)

- --- - - - -- ----- - -- ---- - ------ - - - --- - -- - - - -- - - - - -

98.0 (*)

98.1 (*)

98.1 (*)

98.1 (*)

98.2 (*)

------- ------- -----

x x

x

x

-----

x x

x x

x x

x x

x

,- - - --

x

x x x

x x x

x x

x

,----- ---

105
Table D.I--The aid awards constructed using the eight component

classification scheme, by component, unweighed

frequency, percent receiving the award, and the

average amount of the award for full-time students--

Continued

Weighted

percent

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Cumulative

percent

98.2

98.3

98.3

98.4

98.4

Average

award for

full-time

students

(*)

(*)

(*)

(*)

(*)

Components

of the aid award

T

P

G E

SL

LL

——

x

x

x

x

x

—

P

G

—

x T x

0

O F

FS

GX

——

x x

x x

x

—

s

G

—

x

xT

N

F

I S

G E

——

x x

x

x

x

x x

Vnweighted

frequencies

11

13

13

9

12

-- - - ---- - - - - - -- - - - ----- -------- - - - - - ------- - - . - ------- -- ------ ---

x x x x

x

x x

,x x

x x

x

x

x

x

x

13 0.0 98.4

x 4 0.0 98.5

11 0.0 98.5

5 0.0 98.6

x 16 0.0 98.6

(*)

(*)

(*)

(*)

(*)

x

x

------- ------- ------- ------ ------- ------- ------- ------ --

x x

x x

x

x x

x

x x

x

x

x x x

8 0.0 98.6

11 0.0 98.7

x 10 0.0 98.7

x 7 0.0 98.7

x 6 0.0 98.8

(*)

(*)

(*)

(*)

(*)

-- ----- - ------- ____ - - - ------------- - -- - - - ---- - - - - -------

(*)

(*)

(*)

(*)

(*)

x x

x x x

x x

x x

x x

x

x x x

x x

x x x

x x

x 7 0.0

11 0.0

x 9 0.0

10 0.0

9 0.0

98.8

98.8

98.9

98.9

98.9

--- - ----- - - - - ___ - - - ---- - --------- - - ---- - -------- -- - ----- ------ ---

x

x x

x

x

x x x

x x x 9 0.0

x x x 7 0.0

x x x 3 0.0

x x x 7 0.0

x 7 0.0

99.0

99.0

99.0

99.1

99.1

(*)

(*)

(*)

(*)

(*)

x x x

x x

x

x x x

x 8 0.0

x x x 9 0.0

x x x x 7 0.0

x x 5 0.0

x x x 4 0.0

99.1

99.1

99.2

99.2

99.2

(*)

(*)

(*)

(*)

(*)

------- ------- ------ ------- --------- ------- ------- ______ -------- -

106
eight component

unweighed

Table D.1--The aid awards

classification

constructed using the

scheme, by component, I frequency, percent receiving the award, and the

average amount of the award for full-time students--

Continued

Vnweighted

frequencies

2

4

6

4

6

Components

of the aid award

6--

F

s

H T

N

F

I s

CR

.—

x

x

x

—

P

G

F

x

x

x

—

G

s

L

—

x

x

— —

Average

award for

Cumulative full-time

percent students

o

F

G

s

G

Weighted

percent

—

ix

x

x

x

—

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

99.2 (*)

99.3 (*)

99.3 (*)

99.3 (*)

99.3 (*)

x

x

x

x x

- -- -- -- - ------ .----- ------- ------- .

x 6

6

3

x 8

6

--- ------- -----

x 6

x 6

x 7

4

x 6

--- ------ ------

x 5

5

x 5

x 4

3

--- ------ ------

x 5

x 6

3

x 5

x 4

,------ ------- -

------ ------- ------- ------- --

0.0 99.3 (*)

0.0 99.4 (*)

0.0 99.4 (*)

0.0 99.4 (*)

0.0 99.4 (*)

x

x

x

x

x x

x x

x x

x

x

x x

x

x x

x

x

- - -- --- - -- - - - -- - - -- - - - - .. - - - -

0.0 99.4 (*)

0.0 99.5 (*)

0.0 99.5 (*)

0.0 99*5 (*)

0.0 99.5 (*)

------- -- ------- ---- -- - - - --- -

0.0 99*5 (*)

0.0 99.6 (*)

0.0 99.6 (*)

0.0 99.6 (*)

0.0 99.6 (*)

------- -- ------- ---- -------- -

0.0 99.6 (*)

0.0 99.6 (*)

0.0 99.6 (*)

0.0 99.7 (*)

0.0 99.7 (*)

------- -------- -------- ------

------ -- ,----- ------

x

x

x

x x

x

x

x x

x x

x

x

x x

x

I x x

x

I

,- --- . .-----

x x

x x

x x

x

x x

x

x

x x

x x

x x

x

x x

x

-- - --- -- ,-----

X

x x

x

.-----

x x

x x

x

x

x x

x

x

x x

x x

x

x

x

x

- - -- - --- .-----

x x

x

x x

x

x

---- -

x x

x

x

x

.--_- -

x

x

x

x

x

---

x

x

x

- - -

x x

x

x x

x x

x x

--- -- -

3 0.0

3 0.0

3 0.0

3 0.0

4 0.0

------- ------- ------ -

99.7

99.7

99.7

99.7

99.7

------- ---!

(*)

(*)

(*)

(*)

(*)

- -- -- -- -

107

F-
Table D.1--The aid awards constructed using the

classification scheme, by component,

eight component

unweighed

frequency, percent receiving the award, and the

average amount of the award for full-time students--

Continued

—

G

s

L

T

x

x

Components

of the aid award

------ ------ -----_T

N

F

SP

EG

——

x x

x x

x x

x x

x x

------

Unweighted Weighted

frequencies percent

5 0.0

4 0.0

3 0.0

4 0.0

2 0.0

---------------------

Cumulative

percent

99.8

99.8

99.8

99.8

99.8

.- -- - ---- - - -

Average

award for

full-time

students

(*)

(*)

(*)

(*)

(*)

------- -

x x x x x x 2 0.0 99.8 (*)

x x x x 3 0.0 99.8 (*)

x x x 3 0.0 99.8 (*)

x x x x x 2 0.0 99.8 (*)

x x x x x 3 0.0 99.8 (*)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - -- --- - - - - - - --- -- - ------ -- -

x x x x x 2 0.0 99.9 (*)

x x x x x x 3 0.0 99.9 (*)

x x x x x x x 2 0.0 99.9 (*)

x x x x x 2 0.0 99.9 (*)

x x x x x 2 0.0 99.9 (*)

- - - - - - - - ___ - - - ----- - ___ --- - - - - - ----- -------- - ______ _____ -------- -

X x x x 2 0.0 99.9 (*)

x x x x 1 0.0 99.9 (*)

x x x x x x x 2 0.0 99.9 (*)

x x x x 1 0.0 99.9 (*)

x x x 1 0.0 99.9 (*)

- - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------ - ___ - -- - - -- - - ___ ---------- - -------- -

X x x x x 1 0.0 99.9 (*)

x x x x x 1 0.0 99.9 (*)

x x x x x x 2 0.0 99.9 (*)

x x x x x x 1 0.0 99.9 (*)

x x x x 1 0.0 99.9 (*)

- - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - ___________ - - - - -- ---- ---------- - -------- -

x x x 2 0.0 100.0 (*)

x x x x x 1 0.0 100.0 (*)

x x x x x 1 0.0 100.0 (*)

x x x x x 1 0.0 100.0 (*)

x x x x x x x 2 0.0 100.0 (*)

- - -- - - - --- - - - ---- - - -- - - ------ --- -- - - - -- ____ - -------- -- --- -- --- - - -

108
Table D.I--The aid awards constructed using the eight component

classification scheme, by component, unweighed

frequency, percent receiving the award, and the

average amount of the award for full-time students--

Continued

Components

of the aid award

—

G

s

L

Y

x

F--

E

L

L

YX

x

x

------

0

F

G

—

x

xT

0

F

Ss

HG

——

x x

x

x

x

—

I

G

—

x

x T

N

F

SP

HG

——

x

x x

x

x x

x x

Unweighed

frequencies

1

1

2

1

1

Weighted

percent

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

‘umulative

percent

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

Average

award for

full-time

students

(*)

(*)

(*)

(*)

(*)

x x x x x 1 0.0 100.0 (*)

x x x x x 1 0.0 100.0 (*)

x x x x x x 1 0.0 100.0 (*)

x x x x x x 1 0.0 100.0 (*)

x x x x x 1 0.0 100.0 (*)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -

* Sample size too small for reliable estimates.

-- This award was received by students who reported that they

received aid but did not report the source or type of aid and

students who received non-grant aid from a private source.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for

Education Statistics, The 1987 National Postsecondarv

Student Aid Study.

MJ.S.COVERIWSFWPRUWUWC)FFICE, X990.262.91927999

109